This file was created by scanning the printed publication. 

Text errors identified by the software have been corrected; 

however, some errors may remain. 
Authors

VICTORIA A. SAAB is a research wildlife biologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Intermountain Research Station, 316 E. Myrtle, Boise, ID 83702. Saab is also a research

associate, University of Colorado, University Museum, Campus Box 315, Boulder, CO 80309;

and TERRELL D. RICH is a senior avian ecologist, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of

Land Management, Boise, ID 83709.
Large-Scale Conservation Assessment for

Neotropical Migratory Land Birds in the Interior

Columbia River Basin

Victoria A. Saab and Terrell D. Rich

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project: Scientific Assessment

Thomas M. Quigley, Editor

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Portland, Oregon

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-399

July 1997
Abstract

Saab, Victoria A.; Rich, Terrell D. 1997. Large-scale conservation assessment for Neotropical

migratory land birds in the interior Columbia River basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-399.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station. 56 p. (Quigley, Thomas M., ed. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project: scientific assessment).

The status and habitats of Neotropical migratory land birds (NTMB) are evaluated within the

interior Columbia River basin (interior basin). Objectives are to examine population trends, estimate NTMB responses to alternative management activities, and provide recommendations by

habitat and species for the long-term persistence of NTMB populations. Among 132 NTMBs that

breed in the interior basin, 38 species showed significant population trends over two time periods,

1968-94 (26 years), and 1984-94 (10 years). Fourteen species had significant declines over the 26-

year period and 13 over the 10-year period; 13 and 12 species showed significant increases over

those periods, respectively. Among 16 defined habitats, riparian vegetation was used by more species

(64 percent) than any other habitat. Other habitats used by many species included young coniferous

forest (38 percent) and old-growth/mature forest (35 percent). Nine habitats had more species with

significantly decreasing than increasing populations (26-year period), and seven habitats had more

increasing species. Five habitats (riparian, old-growth forests, shrub-steppe, grasslands, and juniper)

are identified for management priorities based on declines in species, vulnerability to human activities, and habitat loss. Among the four management themes considered, more species (63) were of

high concern under consumptive management than any other theme. Active and passive management themes are predicted to have negative effects on the fewest species, 23 and 16, respectively.

Keywords: Neotropical migrants, migratory birds, interior basin, population trends, conservation

assessment, land use planning, management themes, bird-habitat associations.
Preface

The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project was initiated by the Forest Service

and the Bureau of Land Management to respond to several critical issues including, but not limited

to, forest and rangeland health, anadromous fish concerns, terrestrial species viability concerns, and

the recent decline in traditional commodity flows. The charter given to the project was to develop a

scientifically sound, ecosystem-based strategy for managing the lands of the interior Columbia River

basin administered by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. The Science Integration Team was organized to develop a framework for ecosystem management, an assessment of the

socioeconomic and biophysical systems in the basin, and an evaluation of alternative management

strategies. This paper is one in a series of papers developed as background material for the framework, assessment, or evaluation of alternatives. It provides more detail than was possible to disclose

directly in the primary documents.

The Science Integration Team, although organized functionally, worked hard at integrating the

approaches, analyses, and conclusions. It is the collective effort of team members that provides

depth and understanding to the work of the project. The Science Integration Team leadership

included deputy team leaders Russel Graham and Sylvia Arbelbide; landscape ecology—Wendel

Hann, Paul Hessburg, and Mark Jensen; aquatic—Jim Sedell, Kris Lee, Danny Lee, Jack Williams,

Lynn Decker; economic—Richard Haynes, Amy Home, and Nick Reyna; social science—Jim

Burchfield, Steve McCool, and Jon Bumstead; terrestrial—Bruce Marcot, Kurt Nelson, John

Lehmkuhl, Richard Holthausen, and Randy Hickenbottom; spatial analysis—Becky Gravenmier,

John Steffenson, and Andy Wilson.

Thomas M. Quigley

Editor
Introduction

Widespread population declines among many

species of Neotropical migratory birds (NTMBs)

(Hagan and Johnston 1992, Martin and Finch

1995, Rappole 1995, Terborgh 1989) have

intensified interest in avian conservation among

citizens of the United States and Canada and

have generated new conservation initiatives at

the international level. The North American

Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), a continentwide

program that collects information annually on

songbird populations, found that 75 percent of

forest-dwelling migrants in eastern North

America declined in population during the

1980s (Robbins and others 1989). In 1990, this

fact prompted the creation of an international

conservation network, Partners in Flight (PIF),

an initiative aimed at conserving migratory land

birds that breed mainly in temperate North

America and winter primarily south of the

United States-Mexico border (Finch and

Stangel 1993, Rappole 1995, Rappole and

others 1993). Partners In Flight has since led to

an unprecedented network of individuals,

agencies, and nongovernmental organizations

operating not only in the breeding habitats of

North America but also in the wintering habitats of Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean,

and South America.

Although conservation action originated from

population monitoring in the rich deciduous

forest avifauna of the Eastern United States,

densities of breeding migrants are much higher

in riparian habitats of the Western United

States (Bock and others 1993b, Finch 1991,

Knopf and others 1988, Krueper 1993, Saab

and Groves 1992). These habitats comprise less

than 1 percent of the landscape in the arid

Western United States, and are disproportionately valuable to, not only birds, but amphibians, bats, small and large mammals, and most

other wildlife. Because of the presence of free

water, however, riparian habitats have been

greatly exploited and have suffered two centuries of degradation from livestock grazing,

conversion to agriculture, water diversion,

timber harvest, recreation, urbanization, and

other activities (Bock and others 1993b, Knight

and Gatzwiller 1995, Knopf and others 1988,

Saab and others 1995, Thomas and others 1979).

In the interior Columbia River Basin (hereafter

referred to as the interior basin) (fig. 1), 64

percent of 132 breeding migrants use riparian

vegetation for nesting and foraging habitat

(appendix 1). Compared to Eastern forest bird

populations, migratory land birds using riparian

habitats in the West might be particularly

vulnerable to disturbance and nabitat loss.

Their habitats are fragmented and limited in

distribution so that total population numbers

probably are much smaller than those of migrants in woodlands of eastern North America

(Terborgh 1989). Thus, protection of existing

healthy riparian woodlands and restoration of

degraded or destroyed riparian ecosystems is a

high priority for PIF in the West.

Although fewer migrants inhabit shrub-steppe

and grassland habitats, species that depend on

them have suffered habitat losses through fire,

livestock grazing, spraying, plowing, seeding,

and conversion for agriculture (Bock and others

1993a, Knick and Rottenberry 1995, Saab and

Groves 1992). For example, although perennial

bunchgrasses, which historically provided 100

percent canopy coverage of grass on shrubsteppe sites, are undoubtedly important to

nesting birds (Gregg and others 1994, Saab and

others 1995), the long history of high-intensity

grazing in the West greatly reduced the grass

component of this ecosystem long before any

studies were in place to evaluate its role. Similarly, the most productive Western grasslands

were converted to agricultural crops a century

or more before wildlife use was known. Thus,

major declines in bird populations likely occurred without documentation. Yet despite

these massive historical losses, consistent longterm population declines currently are noted for

several species breeding in shrub-steppe habitats

of Idaho (Saab and Groves 1992), Oregon

(Andelman and Stock 1994a), and Washington

(Andelman and Stock 1994b). Continentally,

grassland species likewise have shown declines

in numbers (Johnson and Schwartz 1993,

Knopf 1988).

Coniferous forests provide nesting and foraging

habitat for 45 percent of breeding migrants in

the interior basin; thus, coniferous forests are

the second most used habitat (after riparian) in

the basin. In western North America, humaninduced changes in coniferous forests have

1
Figure 1—Location of BBS routes used for population-trend analysis for the periods 1968-94 (183 routes)

and 1984-94 (175 routes).

altered bird populations during the past 100

years (Hejl 1992, 1994). Fire suppression and

widespread timber harvest have modified

landscape patterns of the northern Rocky

Mountains, and subsequent changes in bird

species composition and abundance have been

observed (Hejl 1992, Hutto 1995a).

This report evaluates the status and habitats of

Neotropical migratory land birds that breed

within the interior basin (fig. 1). We consider

landscape-level processes that are influenced by

human activity and predict potential consequences for NTMB species. Objectives of our

assessment were to (1) summarize and interpret

2
existing data on population trends of NTMBs

within the interior basin; (2) estimate NTMB

responses to alternative management activities

outlined for the interior basin; and (3) provide

recommendations by habitat and individual

species on management activities for persistence

of NTMB populations within the interior basin.

Methods

Species and Habitats

Methods were guided by existing protocol

developed at national (Carter and Barker 1993)

and regional levels (Andelman and Stock 1994a,

1994b). The PIF conservation assessment strategy, national PIF database (Carter and Barker

1993), and interior basin database (analysis by

U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources

Division) were used to analyze information on

the status of the 132 NTMB species that breed

in the interior basin. Procedures used to develop

the analysis are presented in appendix 2. Interpretation of the PIF database relied primarily

on BBS population trend data from 1968 to

1994 (26-year trends) and from 1984 to 1994

(10-year trends) that were estimated by the U.S.

National Biological Service. Carter and Barker

(1993) provide explanations of how population

trends were interpreted.

To address regional concerns and evaluate

conservation needs of NTMBs from a habitat

basis, we followed methods, with some modifications, outlined by Andelman and Stock

(1994a, 1994b). Data fields added to the

national PIF database included several habitat

associations for each species, a habitat risk

ranking for four interior basin management

themes over a 100-year period, habitat specialization, evidence for population decline, and a

management index of concern (appendix 2).

Note that management concern rankings are

projected for the entire basin over a 100-year

period. Population responses in more localized

areas, or during some portion of the 100-year

period, may be different from the broad projection. Analyses and management actions at finer

scales will determine more localized effects and

effects within different timeframes.

The list of breeding NTMB species and associated habitats in the interior basin was developed

from reports by PIF committees from Oregon

(Andelman and Stock 1994a), Washington

(Andelman and Stock 1995b), Idaho (Ritter

and Partners in Flight, Idaho Working Group

1994), and Montana (Casey and Partners in

Flight, Montana Working Group 1994) (appendix 1). Each species was assigned as using one

or more of 16 habitats which, in turn, represent

aggregations of 180 cover types and structural

stages identified for the interior basin ecosystem

assessment (appendix 3). Habitat risk rankings

were qualitatively assigned based on historic,

current (Andelman and Stock 1994a, 1994b),

and predicted rates of habitat loss, conversion,

and degradation over a 100-year period from

current time for interior basin management

themes (appendix 4 tables 6-9). Because there

are too many species (132) and cover typestructural stages (180) to evaluate simultaneously, this reduction of habitat categories

helped focus our efforts on species likely to be

most affected by alternative management

activities. By aggregating 180 cover typestructural stages into 16 habitats, however, we

may have masked impacts to certain species and

cover types.

Habitat associations included both primary and

secondary habitats used by a species for nesting

and feeding during the breeding season. In

many cases, secondary habitat included several

habitats. Information on habitat use by each

NTMB species was derived from PIF committee reports for Oregon (Andelman and Stock

1994a), Washington (Andelman and Stock

1995b), Idaho (Ritter and Partners in Flight,

Idaho Working Group 1994), and Montana

(Casey and Partners in Flight, Montana Working

Group 1994), and from other selected regional

publications (Dobkin 1993, Saab and Groves

1992). Knowledge is lacking on which habitats

and landscapes have the greatest influence on

the survival and reproduction of a given species.

Thus, habitat assignments for each species

entailed some subjectivity, and thus, habitatlevel interpretations presented here should be

considered with caution.

Specific habitat conservation priorities were

based on results of known population trends for

individual species, species-habitat associations,

qualitative habitat risk rankings, and patterns of

population trends within habitats. Monitoring,

3
research, and management recommendations

were then developed for priority habitats. Speciesspecific recommendations were targeted primarily for species that require specialized monitoring techniques to determine population trends.

Land Management Activities

Land management activities are actions, usually

created or controlled by humans, that have a

direct influence on the environmental factors

affecting the fitness of migrant bird species.

These activities were used to develop the habitat

risk rankings for current conditions (based on

rate of habitat loss or conversion) by Andelman

and Stock (1994a, 1994b) and for the interior

basin management themes on public lands

(appendix 4 tables 6-9).

Below are activities with a brief explanation of

the nature and scope of the activity:

1. Livestock grazing—A widespread land use in

the interior basin that removes vegetation, alters

plant community composition and physical

structure, increases the spread of exotic plants,

attracts parasitic cowbirds, and negatively affects

many migrants breeding within grazed habitats,

particularly in arid portions of the interior basin

(Bock and others 1993b, Saab and others 1995).

2. Public recreation—Recreational use often is

concentrated in riparian areas in both open and

forested habitats. Human activities can remove

and damage vegetation, attract nest predators,

destroy nests and nestlings, and generally

disrupt the nesting activities of many bird

species (Knight and Gutzwiller 1995, Saab 1996).

3. Water management—Stream channelization,

dams, water diversion, spring development,

willow spraying, cottonwood removal, and

irrigation have altered the composition and

structure of riparian vegetation and the associated bird communities (Saab 1996).

4. Fire suppression—Changes in natural fire

regimes since the start of the 20th century have

altered the structure and composition, primarily

of forested plant communities and their associated bird communities (Hejl 1992, 1994;

Hutto 1995a).

5- Habitat fragmentation—Fragmented habitats

on the breeding grounds can negatively affect

"habitat interior" species are species that nest

away from habitat edges, and "area sensitive"

species, those species whose densities and

reproductive success are consistently higher in

extensive habitat tracts (Finch 1991, Freemark

and Collins 1992, Robinson 1992). As large

habitat patches are fragmented into smaller

patches, the proportion of edge to interior

habitat increases. Nests along forest-agricultural

edges and in small habitat patches are subject to

higher rates of predation by corvids, raccoons,

skunks, feral cats, dogs, and other animals

(Finch and Stangel 1993). Brood parasitism also

contributes to increased nesting losses along

edges (Robinson and others 1993, 1995).

Habitats are fragmented by the following

activities:

a. Urban development—Removal of vegetation

for residential or commercial development,

particularly within low-elevation riparian zones

of the interior basin (Saab 1996).

b. Agricultural development—Conversion of

natural vegetation to agricultural crops, particularly within low-elevation riparian zones of the

interior basin (Saab 1996).

c. Timber harvest—Removal and conversion of

forested vegetation and concurrent road building (often in streamside habitats) (Hejl 1994).

d. Invasions of exotic plants—Conversion of

native vegetation to exotic vegetation, particularly in shrub-steppe habitats vulnerable to

invasions by exotic plants (Knick and

Rotenberry 1995).

e. Exotic plant seedings—Conversion of native

shrub-steppe habitats to crested wheatgrass

seedings (Reynolds and Trost 1980).

f. Juniper control—Removal of junipers (plant

scientific names listed in appendix 3) by logging

or other mechanical methods (McCoy 1993).

Management Themes

We calculated four management concern

indices for each NTMB species to evaluate bird

responses to several interior basin management

themes for a planning period of 100 years

(appendices 5 and 6). Analyses and management activities at smaller scales will determine

more localized effects and effects within differ4
ent timeframes The four management themes

considered here represent various management

activities (see previous section) proposed for

public lands within the interior basin Assumptions of the themes are listed in appendix 5

The following are brief descriptions of the

management themes

1 The no action (NA) theme follows the Forest

and Bureau of Land Management plans as currently written Management would be similar to

the past few years, restrictions on logging, grazing, and mineral extraction, wildfire suppression

and limited prescriptive fire

2 The consumptive demand (CD) theme

emphasizes the extraction of resources to meet

social demands and economic efficiency All

resource uses would be maximized for sustained

yield with few restrictions on logging, grazing,

or mineral extraction Fire management would

be used to maximize commodity production

3 The active management (AM) theme emphasizes the maintenance and restoration of ecosystem functions and processes Timber harvest

and silvicultural treatments focus on achieving

forest structure and composition to provide for

ecosystem function and processes Tnere would

be an emphasis on prescriptive fire with other

vegetation management for ecosystem functions

4 The passive management (PM) theme emphasizes activities for ecological processes and

management for nonconsumptive uses—no

timber harvest, livestock grazing, mineral

extraction, or prescriptive fire Fire prevention

would be used only to protect the public

Results

Population Trends

Breeding Bird Survey data from 183 routes

(1968-94) and 175 routes (1984-94) were used

to estimate long-term population trends, based

on the percentage of population change per year

(fig 1) Among the 132 species of Neotropical

migratory land birds considered in this analysis,

38 species (29 percent) demonstrated significant population trends over either the 26- or

10-year period (table 1) This includes 14

species with significant declines over the 26-

year period and 13 species with significant

declines over the 10-year period Thirteen and

twelve species have shown significant increases

over those periods, respectively

Considering only those species that showed

significant trends in the same direction over

both periods, there are seven species that

declined and seven that increased (table 1)

Consistent declines (and the percentage of

population change per year over the 26-year

period, table 1) are exhibited by the following

species/ killdeer (-4 3), olive-sided flycatcher

(-2 9), willow flycatcher (-2 5), red-winged

blackbird (-1 5), Western meadowlark (-0 8),

brewer's blackbird (-1 3) and brewer's sparrow

(-4 6) Consistent increases are evident in the

red-tailed hawk (+4 3), spotted towhee (formerly Rufous-sided) (+3 5), black-headed

grosbeak (+4 8), orange-crowned warbler

(+3 5), gray catbird (+4 0), house wren (+4 4),

and mountain bluebird (+4 0)

Focusing attention on species showing longterm consistent declines can conserve avifaunal

diversity and prevent the need to list the species

on the Federal "candidate, threatened or endangered" listing Similarly, species that show stable

populations for the longer 26-year period but

have had highly significant declines in the past

10 years may reflect serious new problems (for

example, pine siskin, table 1)

Black-headed grosbeaks have experienced highly

significant increases over both trie 10- and 26-

year periods, and a small group of species seems

to be increasing more rapidly in the last 10

years than over the longer period These include

the spotted towhee, orange-crowned warbler,

gray catbird, house wren, and mountain bluebird The only species to move from stable to

rapidly increasing is the osprey (table 1)

No species showed a reversal in significant

trends, that is, no species declined significantly

during the 26-year period and increased significantly during the 10-year period or vice versa

Because the 10-year data are a subset of the 26-

year data, this perhaps is not surprising

This analysis does not provide cause-effect

explanations for current population trends of

given species Natural history characteristics

such as the location of nest placement, or nest

/

 Scientific names of bird species are given in appendix 1

5
Table 1—Neotropical migratory land birds in the interior basin for which Breeding Bird

Survey sample size is sufficient (recorded on >14 routes) to quantify significant long-term

declines or increases in population trends by percentage of change per year for 26-year

(1968-94) and 10-year (1984-94) periods"

a

* P < 0 10 ** P < 0 05 and ***P < 0 01

bNest layer abbreviations CA = subcanopy and canopy-nesting species, GR = ground-nesting species, SH = shrub-nesting

species, based on characteristics described by Ehrrich and others (1988) and Martin (1993)

Species

Osprey

Red-tailed hawk

Golden eagle

Killdeer

Long-billed curlew

Mourning dove

Red-naped sapsucker

Calliope hummingbird

Olive-sided flycatcher

Willow flycatcher

Gray flycatcher

Say's phoebe

Horned lark

Cliff swallow

House wren

Marsh wren

Mountain bluebird

American robin

Gray catbird

Loggerhead shrike

Warbling vireo

Orange-crowned warbler

Yellow warbler

Townsend's warbler

Common yellowthroat

Black-headed grosbeak

Spotted towhee

Chipping sparrow

Brewer's sparrow

Lark sparrow

Savannah sparrow

Song sparrow

Red-winged blackbird

Western meadowlark

Brewer's blackbird

Pine siskin

American goldfinch

Nest layer6

CA

CA

CA

GR

GR

SH

CA

CA

CA

SH

SH

CA

GR

CA

CA

SH

CA

CA

SH

SH

CA

GR

SH

CA

SH

SH

GR

SH

SH

SH

GR

SH

SH

GR

SH

CA

CA

Decline

26 years

-4 3"*

-2.2'"

-2.9'*

-2 5"

-2 9**

-2.7**

-2.7***

-1.3***

-2.9"

-2.7***

-1.5'

-.8'

-1.3'

-2.1'

10 years

-10 5"'

-13.4"

-4.2"

-4 3"'

-1.5'

-2.1"

-4.3***

-3.2*

-2.3*

-3.7***

-4.3***

-8.8***

Increase

26 years

4.3'"

5.1*"

12.0'

5.4*

2.8***

4.4**

4.0***

4.0**

4.1**

3.5*

5.2***

4.8***

3.5*

10 years

6.4"*

4.0"

10.9"

13.6"

5.7*

8.8*

8.1**

6.3***

7.5**

2.8*

5.4***

7.6***
Figure 2—Number of NTMB species in each nest layer that show significant increases or decreases in

population trends. The direction of population trend was not independent of nest layer (x

2

 = 13.85, d.f.=

2, and P< 0.001).

layer, however, have been shown to be highly

correlated with reproductive success and survival of many North American land birds

(Martin 1993, 1995) and this pattern can be

readily tested. The 28 species showing significant 26-year increases and decreases were

categorized into one of three nest layers, based

on location of the typical nest: ground, shrub,

or canopy (table 1). Species with increasing

population trends and those with decreasing

trends were not equally distributed among nest

layers (fig. 2, x

2

 = 13.85, P < 0.001). Species

with decreasing populations tend to be those

nesting in the shrub layer, whereas species with

increasing populations tend to nest in tree

canopies. This is consistent with other findings

and suggests that nest predation and cowbird

parasitism may be playing a role in the reproductive success and survival of shrub-nesting

species (Martin 1993, 1995). Additionally,

shrub understories, which provide habitat for

nesting birds, could be declining due to fire

suppression. Changes in fire regimes among

forests have caused losses in shrub understories

and increases in closed multistory canopies,

especially in lower montane ponderosa pine and

dry Douglas-fir forests within the interior basin

(table 2). This increase in closed canopies also

could be an explanation for the increases in

canopy-nesting birds. Canopy nesters also tend

to increase in abundance as compared to shrub

or ground nesters in habitats grazed by livestock

(Saab 1996, Saab and others 1995).

Nearly 47 percent (62 of 132) of the Neotropical migratory land birds show no detectable

population trend over both the 26- and 10-year

periods (appendix 6). Thus, populations for

almost half of the migrant species seem to be

stable. This result should be viewed with caution, however, because the BBS is not appropriate for monitoring population trends or some of

these species (see below).

Thirty-three species (25 percent), based on 26-

year data, are not adequately sampled by the

BBS method (status "I" and "P," table 3). These

include 21 species (status "I," table 3) for which

there are inadequate sample sizes because these

7
a

 Riparian cover types were not included because the 1 kilometer resolution used to estimate percentages was not adequate

for estimating the naturally small patch sizes of and land riparian vegetation

2Source Hann and others 1997

species typically do not sing, are secretive, are

not active in the morning, or are too rare to be

detected with sufficient frequency by the BBS

Nothing can be said about trends in populations of these species

Twelve species (status "P," table 3) are rare in

the area of analysis because they are on the

periphery of their ranges Further concern over

population trends or future monitoring of these

species in the interior basin probably is not

warranted A third group includes 28 species

(status "S," table 3) that technically may have

an adequate sample size in the BBS data but

whose ecology and behavior indicate that a

more specialized monitoring technique will

provide better information

Specialized monitoring techniques are needed

for 49 species that are designated by "I" and "S"

(table 3)—"specialized" in the sense that something other than BBS must be used if biologists

want to track their populations Specialized

techniques already exist for some species For

example, raptor biologists use various specialized techniques for owls and forest-nesting

raptors (Fuller and Mosher 1981) But new

techniques will have to be developed, or existing

techniques significantly refined, for many other

species

Habitat Use Patterns

Riparian habitat was used by more species than

any other habitat (fig 3) Among the 16 habitats used in this analysis, 84 of 132 species (64

percent) use riparian habitat during the breeding season Other habitats used by a relatively

large number of species include young coniferCover type

Big sagebrush

Interior ponderosa pine

Agropyron bunchgrass

Mountain big sagebrush

Fescue bunchgrass

Interior ponderosa pine

Fescue bunchgrass

Agropyron bunchgrass

Big sagebrush

Big sagebrush

Interior Douglas-fir

Interior ponderosa pine

Low sage

Grand fir and white fir

Interior Douglas-fir

Interior ponderosa pine

Structural stage

Open low shrub

Old single-layer forest

Closed herbland

Open mid shrub

Closed herbland

Stem exclusion closed canopy

Open herbland

Open herbland

Closed low shrub

Closed herbland

Stem exclusion closed canopy

Stem exclusion open canopy

Open low shrub

Stem exclusion closed canopy

Young multilayered forest

Young multilayered forest

Historic

percentage

20 83

5 52

4 81

3 26

5 53

3 47

2 65

1 90

2 39

1 35

2 78

1 09

38

10

18

09

Current

percentage

Percent

15 24

1 01

1 56

03

2 53

83

21

24

1 00

21

1 78

2 59

1 90

1 69

2 35

3 34

Table 2—Ecologically significant changes in broadscale cover type-structural stages within

the interior Columbia River basina

8
a

 I = BBS data are insufficient Because of the ecology and natural history of these species it is unlikely that the

sample size would increase with more BBS routes

bP = BBS data are insufficient Species occurs rarely in the interior basin because it is on the periphery of its range

Species are considered on the periphery of their ranges if their range occupies < 10 percent of the interior Columbia

River basin

eS = BBS data are technically sufficient but the ecology and behavior of these species indicate that specialized

monitoring will provide more accurate information

Table 3—Neotropical migratory birds in the Columbia River basin requiring specialized monitoring

Species

Upland sandpiper

Sharp-shinned hawk

Cooper's hawk

Northern goshawk

Peregrine falcon

Merlin

Long-eared owl

Flammulated owl

Red-breasted sapsucker

Common poorwill

Black swift

White-throated swift

Black-chinned hummingbird

Broad-tailed hummingbird

Ash-throated flycatcher

Purple martin

Black-throated gray warbler

Hermit warbler

Northern waterthrush

American pipit

Blue-gray gnatcatcher

Yellow-billed cuckoo

Black-billed cuckoo

Least flycatcher

Tri-colored blackbird

Lesser goldfinch

Clay-colored sparrow

Black-throated sparrow

Blue grosbeak

Lark bunting

Virginia's warbler

Status

a

P

b

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

Species

Tennessee warbler

Northern mockingbird

Long-billed curlew

Swainson's hawk

Ferruginous hawk

Prairie falcon

Short-eared owl

Burrowing owl

Red-naped sapsucker

Williamson's sapsucker

Lewis' woodpecker

Common nighthawk

Calliope hummingbird

Cordilleran flycatcher

Gray flycatcher

Bobolink

Yellow-headed blackbird

Purple finch

Red crossbill

Grasshopper sparrow

Sage sparrow

Lincoln's sparrow

Green-tailed towhee

Bank swallow

Red-eyed vireo

American redstart

Marsh wren

Veery

Western bluebird

Mountain bluebird

Status

P

P

S

c

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

s

s

s

9
Figure 4—Percentage of NTMB species in each habitat with significant increasing or decreasing population

trends from 1968 to 1994.

10

Figure 3—Number of NTMB species using each habitat during the breeding season. Note that many species

typically use more than one habitat. Habitat specialists are those species using only one or two habitats.
ous forest, 50 species (38 percent of all species);

old-growth coniferous forest, 46 species (35

percent); agriculture-pastureland, 45 species (34

percent); shrub-steppe, 43 species (33 percent);

and juniper woodlands, 43 species (33 percent).

Cliffs, rocks, and talus had the least use, with

13 species (10 percent), whereas alpine (14

species or 11 percent) and mountain shrubprairie brushneld (23 species or 17 percent) also

were less used.

Considerable variation exists among species in

the number of habitats they use. For example,

willow flycatchers are found only in riparian

habitats, whereas American kestrels use 14 of

the 16 types in the planning area. In summary,

11 species used one habitat, 21 species used two

habitats, 22 species used three habitats, and 28

species used four habitats. The remaining 50

species used five or more habitats.

Thirty-two species were considered habitat

"specialists" based on their use of only one or

two habitats (appendices 1 and 7). Again,

riparian habitat emerges as important with 15

specialists (fig. 3). Other habitats important for

specialists include old-growth coniferous forest

and young coniferous forest with six species

each. Freshwater marshes and ponds, and

shrub-steppe habitats each host five specialists.

Clearcuts, juniper woodlands, oak woodlands,

cliffs, talus, and rocks had no specialists as

defined here.

The percentage of avifauna that are specialists

within habitats shows roughly the same pattern

as absolute species numbers, with freshwater

marshes and ponds highest (19 percent),

followed by riparian (18 percent), alpine (14

percent), old-growth coniferous forest (13

percent), young coniferous forest (12 percent),

and shrub-steppe (12 percent). Although few

species use alpine habitats, there "was still a

relatively high proportion of specialists when

compared to its total avifauna. Several riparian

specialists are widely distributed over the North

American Continent (for example, gray catbird,

veery, yellow warbler) (cf. Knopf and Samson

1995). Their global populations may not be as

threatened by local management practices in the

interior basin as those species with relatively

narrow distributions; for example, species

inhabiting shrub-steppe habitats (Brewer's

sparrow and sage thrasher).

Key indicators of habitat condition and species

for which management decisions may have the

most impact are those 10 species that use only

a single habitat. These are the yellow-billed

cuckoo, black-billed cuckoo, least flycatcher,

black-throated sparrow, willow flycatcher,

Brewer's sparrow, yellow warbler, veery, gray

catbird, and marsh wren. The first four of these

are classified as peripheral to the interior basin

(table 3) and are of greater concern in regions

that include more of their ranges. The longterm conservation of species, however, may

depend on the protection of genetically

distinct peripheral populations (Lesica and

Allendorf 1995).

Among the single-habitat specialists that are not

peripheral in the interior basin, marsh wrens

occur only in freshwater marshes and have a

significantly increasing population (table 1).

Brewer's sparrow breeds only in shrub-steppe

habitats (and open juniper woodlands with an

understory of shrub-steppe vegetation) and has

a significantly declining population. The other

four species are all riparian specialists. The gray

catbird population is significantly increasing,

the veery shows no trend (possibly because of

inadequate monitoring), and the willow flycatcher and yellow warbler populations (10-year

period only) are significantly declining (table 1).

Thus, shrub-steppe and riparian stand out from

the other 14 habitats as being higher priorities

in terms of specialist species.

Evaluating all species with significant 26-year

population trends, by habitat, shows that seven

habitats have more increasing than decreasing

populations (old-growth coniferous, young

coniferous, mountain shrub, riparian, oak

woodland, aspen, and cliffs and talus) (fig. 4).

We view this with caution because (1) both

primary and secondary habitats for all species

are included; and (2) in many cases, one habitat

represents several cover type-structural stages,

which could be concealing the results for

certain cover types. Sample sizes are not sufficient to consider increasing and decreasing

trends of only habitat specialists (those species

using only one or two habitats), but specialists

have more increasing populations of species.

Nine habitats have more species with significantly decreasing than increasing populations,

including urban and agriculture-pastureland.

11
Figure 5—Number of NTMB species within each management index category (or management concern ranking) by management theme.

Urban and agricultural lands do not provide

primary habitat for native avifauna but are used

secondarily. For example, many declining

grassland birds (Western meadowlark, horned

lark, and lark sparrows) inhabit human-modified landscapes (appendix 1) after their native

grasslands have been altered by urbanization

and agriculture.

Management Themes

To summarize a comparison of all species under

all themes, we designated species with a management index of > 9 as species of high concern

to management (fig. 5). Tne value of 9 was

selected because it is the median of all index

values. More species (48 percent or 63 of 132)

were of high concern to management under

consumptive demand than under any other

theme (rigs. 5 and 6). Fewer species were of

concern under the no action theme (33 percent

or 44 species), active management (17 percent

or 23 species) and passive management (12

percent or 16 species) themes.

A mean index for management was calculated

for all 132 species under each theme to further

aid comparison. These values (x+ lsd) are as

follows: consumptive demand 9.06 + 0.22; no

action 8.35 ± 0.23; active management 6.93 ±

0.18; and passive management 6.7 + 0.21.

There was a significant difference among

themes (Kruskal-Wallis, x

2

 = 84.6, P < 0.0001).

A least significant difference multiple-comparisons test revealed that mean management

indices differed among all pairs of themes

except between active and passive management.

Birds of riparian, freshwater marshes and ponds

and shrub-steppe habitats would be most

affected by the consumptive demand theme

(figs. 6b and 6c). Nearly half (45 percent) of all

riparian species, 44 percent of species using

freshwater marshes and ponds, 44 percent of

shrub-steppe species, and 43 percent of both

grassland and alpine species would be of high

concern to management under consumptive

demand. In aspen habitats, 34 percent of all

species would be of high concern under the

consumptive theme, whereas no species would

12

Species experiencing long-term population declines based on BBS data

be in this category under active or passive

themes Species using cliffs and talus, urban,

and agricultural lands would be least affected by

any theme (fig 6d)

Fifteen species were of high concern under all

themes (table 4) Of those, nine use shrubsteppe vegetation as their primary nesting

habitat Shrub-steppe cover types (sagebrush

and bunchgrass types) have experienced the

greatest loss of all habitats within the interior

basin (table 2) and are predicted to decline in the

future under all management themes (table 5)

This indicates a need for greatly increased

protection of healthy shrub-steppe ecosystems,

restoration of damaged systems, and improved

management of all shrub-steppe (see Saab and

others 1995)

Two species of high concern to management,

Lewis' woodpecker and olive-sided flycatcher,

use open, mature coniferous forest and postfire

forests as primary nesting habitats (Dobkin

1993, Ehrhch and others 1988, Hutto 1995a).

These habitats have declined over the past 100

years because of timber harvest and fire suppression, respectively (Hejl 1994). Of all forest

cover types in the interior basin, the firemaintained, old-growth ponderosa pine forests

have suffered the greatest losses (table 2)

Eight of the preceding 15 species also are

experiencing long-term population declines,

thereby suggesting that current management

activities may not be compatible with long-term

persistence of these populations. These species

include the olive-sided flycatcher, willow

flycatcher, loggerhead shrike, lark sparrow,

Brewer s sparrow, Western meadowlark, Brewer's

blackbird, and pine siskin. Loggerhead shrikes

have experienced significant long-term population declines on local (Saab and Groves 1992),

14

Table 4—Species of high concern to management (management index > 9)

under all themes

Species

Lewis' woodpecker

Olive-sided flycatchera

Willow flycatchera

Sage thrasher

Loggerhead shrikea

Hermit warbler

Virginia's warbler

Lark bunting

Lark sparrowa

Brewer's sparrowa

Sage sparrow

Black-throated sparrow

Western meadowlarka

Brewer's blackbirda

Pine siskina

Primary habitats for breeding

Coniferous forest, riparian

Coniferous forest

Riparian

Shrub-steppe

Shrub-steppe

Coniferous forest

Juniper woodland

Shrub-steppe, grassland

Shrub-steppe

Shrub-steppe

Shrub-steppe

Shrub-steppe

Shrub-steppe, grassland

Shrub-steppe

Coniferous forest
Table 5—Estimated areas (hectares) of habitats representing terrestrial communities for

historical, current, and future periods by two management themes (100 years from

present)a8

Habitat

Agriculture

Alpine

Clearcut/

seedling/

shrub coniferous

Old-growth/

mature coniferous

forest

Young coniferous

forest

and mid subalpine

Cliffs/rocks/talus

Grasslands and

wet, dry, hay

meadows

Shrub-steppe and

mountain shrubs

Juniper and

aspen and oak

woodlands

Urban

Freshwater

marshes, ponds,

lakes

Terrestrial

communities

Agriculture

Alpine

Early montane, early

lower montane, and

early subalpine

Late montane,

late lower montane,

and late subalpine

Mid montane,

mid lower montane,

Rock/barren

Upland herbland

and exotics

Upland shrubland

Upland woodland

Urban

Water

Historic

0

166,930

9,181,194

11,017,433

15,107,237

166,931

12,102,483

30,631,802

1,585,843

0

751,189

Current

13,437,929

166,930

8,346,540

6,593,767

22,368,727

166,931

5,842,578

21,283,677

2,337,031

166,931

751,189

No

action

12,770,206

166,930

7,261,489

10,433,175

20,282,092

166,931

10,933,967

16,442,684

2,587,427

500,792

751,189

Active

12,770,206

166,930

9,014,263

12,019,018

17,945,061

166,931

11,685,156

16,025,357

1,669,308

500,792

751,189

" Riparian habitat was not included because the 1-kilometer resolution used to estimate these areas was not adequate for

estimating the naturally small patch sizes of and land riparian vegetation

Source Hann and others 1997

15
regional (Andelman and Stock 1994a, 1994b),

and continental scales (Peterjohn and others

1994). Reasons for the decline in shrike populations are not well understood but may include

pesticides and some grazing practices (Bock and

others 1993, Woods and Cade 1996).

Habitat Conservation Strategies

Managers can maximize the effectiveness of

conservation efforts by using habitat or ecosystem-level conservation strategies rather than

focusing on individual species, whenever

possible. For this approach, patterns of habitat

losses in the past, present, and future are considered for setting habitat conservation strategies. The environmental assessment for the

interior basin estimated areal extents of vegetative communities for historic (presettlement),

current, and future conditions over a 100-year

period throughout the interior basin (table 5),

and our qualitative habitat risk rankings reflect

those predictions for habitat changes based on

the no action and active management themes

(appendix 4 tables 6 and 8). Areas of riparian

vegetative communities were not included

because the 1-kilometer resolution was not

adequate for estimating the naturally small

patch sizes of riparian vegetation. Habitat

responses to passive and consumptive demand

themes were estimated without areal extent

information because it was not available. By

using the habitat risk rankings according to

management theme and population trend data,

we identified three primary factors for setting

habitat conservation priorities: (1) habitats with

the greatest percentage of species declining, (2)

habitats with the greatest percentage of species

vulnerable to management activities outlined

for the various themes, and (3) habitats that are

highly vulnerable to loss, degradation, or

conversion under the different themes (cf.

Andelman and Stock 1994a, 1994b).

Nine of sixteen habitats had a greater percentage of species with decreasing rather than

increasing population trends (fig. 4), although

no habitat had statistically more decreasing

than increasing populations (chi-square tests,

P > 0.05). (We caution that these results could

be masking effects to certain cover type-structural stages that were aggregated into one

habitat.) The natural habitats with more declining species included grassland, shrub-steppe,

juniper, alpine, marshes and ponds, and meadows. In addition, three of these habitats (grasslands, shrub-steppe, and juniper) also were

considered to be highly vulnerable to loss,

degradation, or conversion under at least two

themes (appendix 4, tables 6-9, ranked as 5). Of

these habitats, shrub-steppe has the highest

percentage of species vulnerable to management

activities under all themes (fig. 6b). Even under

themes where aggressive restoration activities

are planned (for example, active management

theme), it is thought tnat the deterioration and

loss of sagebrush habitat will outpace restoration successes (table 5).

Other habitats considered highly vulnerable to

loss, degradation, or conversion under at least

two themes, but with lower percentages of

declining species, included riparian, old-growth/

mature coniferous forest, and oak woodlands

(appendix 4, tables 6-9). Because the historical

distribution of oak woodlands was limited and

peripheral within the interior basin, this habitat

would not be considered a high priority to management for Neotropical migratory land birds.

Evaluating the three criteria listed above (that is,

species declines, habitats with species highly

vulnerable to alternative management activities,

and vulnerability to habitat loss), five habitats

were identified as the highest priority for

conservation of NTMBs: riparian, old-growth/

mature coniferous forests, shrub-steppe, grasslands, and juniper woodlands. Managing

priority habitats for presettlement conditions

where possible, including restoring natural

disturbance regimes or emulating those ecosystem processes with management activities, will

improve conditions for the conservation of

Neotropical migrants. To evaluate the success of

management activities, biologists should determine Loth migrant and resident bird responses

through carefully conceived, long-term monitoring of selected populations, species, and communities. Because much is not known about

these species and the effects of land use activities, continual feedback, and adaptive management is not only necessary but gives managers

an ideal opportunity to test their ability to

change management based on a relatively conspicuous and sensitive component of ecosystems.

16
Recommendations for

Monitoring and Research

Population and Species-Based

Monitoring and Research

Many of our results are based on the BBS, and

these data are counts of individual birds occurring at particular sites during the breeding

season. The data do not provide information on

habitat relationships or demographic parameters such as reproductive success, productivity,

and survival. Thus, when we discuss "population" trends, we are using counts of birds to

indicate population size. Although these counts

are useful for population trends, biologists do

not know the ecological processes responsible

for the trends or if specific habitats and landscapes are acting as population "sinks," in which

local reproduction is insufficient to compensate

for adult mortality (Pulliam 1988).

To augment the BBS and other count data (for

example, point count surveys conducted to

evaluate habitat relationships), programs designed to monitor productivity and survival are

needed. Both the MAPS (monitoring avian

productivity survivorship, DeSante and others

1993) and BBIRD (breeding biology research

and monitoring database, Martin and Guepel

1993) protocols have been widely tested and

have become standardized techniques for demographic data collection. The demographic data

are needed to better understand the effects of

management actions. This is particularly

important for migratory wildlife because at the

largest geographic scale, biologists need to know

if negative impacts are occurring during the

breeding season, wintering season, fall migration, or spring migration. Monitoring programs

designed to incorporate demographic data by

using existing protocol can be coordinated

basinwide to most efficiently gather the needed

information on regional and landscape levels.

The lack of clear patterns in population trends

among species reinforces our understanding

that each species is unique in its natural history,

behavior, and habitat requirements. Species are

not readily lumped into groups for which

broadly applied management guidelines can

be prescribed. Ecologists need more detailed

demographic data on selected species of high

concern to management within priority habitats. In addition, broad knowledge of habitat

requirements of birds is needed in all habitats

within various landscapes (that is, agricultural,

urban, natural managed, and protected public

lands) in the interior basin. Gathering information on both populations and communities is

an ecosystem approach that will allow us to

manage for habitat and landscape conditions

that benefit the most species or species of

special concern to management.

Given the inability of biologists to generalize

about the causes of declines from one species to

another, demographic and associated habitat

data (or data on trends in habitat condition for

species whose habitat requirements are well

known, for example, red-winged blackbird) are

needed for at least some species with consistent

long-term declines. These species include olivesided flycatcher, red-winged blackbird, Brewer's

sparrow, willow flycatcher, killdeer, Western

meadowlark, and Brewer's blackbird. Within

this group, the first three species not only are

declining within the interior basin, but

rangewide (Peterjohn and Sauer 1993). Five of

these species were of high concern to management under all themes considered for this

assessment (table 4). Additionally, the southwestern subspecies of the willow flycatcher

{Empidonax traillii extimus [found in the

Southwestern United States]) was recently listed

as federally endangered (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service 1995). Perhaps similar processes are

affecting willow flycatchers in the interior basin.

To better understand geographic differences in

population trends for individual species, biologists can examine regional landscape-level

habitat conditions. In the interior basin, several

species have shown consistent long-term population increases: red-tailed hawk, house wren,

spotted towhee, black-headed grosbeak, orangecrowned warbler, gray catbird, and mountain

bluebird. The first two species have rangewide

increases, whereas the spotted towhee is decreasing at a highly significant rate continentwide

(Peterjohn and Sauer 1993). Among these

species, only towhee population changes seem

to be understood at the landscape scale. An

increase of forest cover in the Northeastern

United States has apparently reduced towhee

17
habitat in a predictable way (Hagan 1993). Perhaps the reduction of mature forest and increase

in second-growth and young coniferous forests

in the interior basin (table 5) has had the converse effect on towhees. We recommend new

research on species that are apparently increasing in some regions and decreasing in others.

Within the interior basin, we found that declining species tended to be shrub nesters, whereas

increasing species tended to be canopy nesters

(fig. 2). This is consistent with patterns observed in forested habitats over North America.

Increases in nest predation and brood parasitism are thought to affect the overall fitness of

these shrub-nesting species (Martin 1993,

1995). Additionally, fragmented and agricultural landscapes attract nest predators and

brown-headed cowbirds, thereby resulting in

low reproductive rates of Neotropical migrants

in such landscapes (Robinson and others 1995).

We recommend that future research and monitoring focus on determining if there are causeeffect relations among nest placement, landscapes, reproductive success and productivity.

Determining the influence of these factors on

the overall fitness of selected species will lead to

management actions compatible with population persistence of NTMBs.

Among 62 species that show no detectable

population trend in the interior basin, 38 of

these also show no trend at the continental scale

(Peterjohn and Sauer 1993, Peterjohn and others

1994). Nine species, however, have significantly

declining populations at one or more regional

scales across North America (eastern, central, or

western): rufous hummingbird, white-crowned

sparrow, rock wren, Western bluebird, belted

kingfisher, bobolink, grasshopper sparrow,

ruby-crowned kinglet, and veery. The first four

of these are notably Western in their distribution and should be seriously considered in the

interior basin.

In addition to the above species, the 21 species

insufficiently sampled by BBS (status "I," table

3), and the 28 species that need improved

monitoring (status "S," table 3) all require

specialized monitoring techniques. Continued

or expanded BBS coverage is unlikely to provide

adequate monitoring of these species. Lewis'

woodpecker and sage sparrow are species of

high concern to management under all themes

(table 4) and both require specialized monitoring techniques (status "S," table 3). Biologists

could determine other species of high concern

to management, then develop methods and a

basinwide sampling design to implement

specialized monitoring programs.

Habitat-Based Monitoring and

Research

Comprehensive habitat management and

monitoring efforts are needed at the ecosystem

level within each of the five priority habitats

(riparian, old-growth/mature coniferous forest,

shrub-steppe, juniper woodlands, and grasslands). Habitat management can include

conservation (limited management) of cover

types and structural stages representative of

natural communities (for example, Research

Natural Areas and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern) and active management to

restore or emulate natural disturbance regimes

over large areas. Monitoring programs can be

used to evaluate the success of habitat management and should be designed to (1) maximize

the number of species monitored (community

based), (2) evaluate population trends for

individual species across habitats and management regimes (species based), and (3) evaluate

habitat quality and quantity in association with

population monitoring (population based).

Coordinated basinwide monitoring programs

would be most effective for a landscape-level

approach with methods standardized from

existing protocols (DeSante and others 1993,

Martin and Guepel 1993, Ralph and others

1993). Community-based monitoring could be

implemented by using point-count and nest

surveys (Ralph and others 1993) within cover

type-structural stages under specific management regimes. Existing BBS routes and perhaps

new routes would be part of the species-based

monitoring. In addition to the BBS, speciesbased monitoring should include habitat and

management-specific point-count surveys that

are widely conducted across the interior basin.

This monitoring could be an expansion of the

regional monitoring for the northern Rockies

currently conducted by Hutto (1995b) in

coordination with the USDA Forest Service. In

18
addition, population-based monitoring must

include programs to monitor reproductive

success, productivity, and survival (DeSante and

others 1993, Martin and Guepel 1993) of at

least one priority species for each priority

habitat. Species selected for population monitoring should be habitat specialists (using one

or two habitats during the breeding season) and

those thought to be the most sensitive to

various management activities.

Of the habitats identified for conservation

priority, we emphasize the importance of

restoring and protecting riparian habitats for

maximizing benefits to NTMB species within

the interior basin. Riparian habitats are relatively scarce in the interior basin, yet their

importance is clearly demonstrated by the fact

that 84 of 132 NTMBs (64 percent) use riparian vegetation during the breeding season.

Riparian habitats also had the highest number

of specialists (15). This disproportional importance of riparian vegetation to birds and other

wildlife is typical or arid landscapes in the

Western United States (Krueper 1993). Riparian habitats have suffered more degradation by

various human activities than other habitats

(Knopf and others 1988, Krueper 1993, Saab

and others 1995). Because breeding bird populations have shown a dramatic positive response

to restoration of native streamside vegetation

(Krueper 1993), an emphasis on improving the

ecological conditions of degraded riparian

habitats would benefit many NTMB species.

To better understand bird-habitat relationships,

research and monitoring are needed to evaluate

the ecological potential of riparian habitats (and

other priority habitats) and associated NTMBs

by establishing completely protected study sites

and comparing them to managed sites (cf. Bock

and others 1993a, 1993b). Representative

control sites within each riparian cover typestructural stage could be paired with managed

sites to evaluate pervasive and synergistic

impacts of activities such as livestock grazing,

recreation, timber harvest, and water management. Recommendations with regards to

livestock grazing are outlined by Saab and

others (1995), with regards to recreation by

Saab (1996), and regarding water management

by Merigliano (1996).

Two other habitats identified for conservation

priority have many NTMB species and several

habitat specialists. These are old-growth coniferous forest and shrub-steppe. According to BBS

data, none of the habitat specialists in oldgrowth forest are declining. One nonspecialist,

the olive-sided flycatcher is experiencing significant long-term population declines regionally

and throughout its ranee (Peterjohn and others

1994). The primary habitat of this species

includes mature, open forests and burned

forests (Dobkin 1993, Ehrlich and others

1988). Research is needed to determine the

influence of past forest management practices

(intensive harvest of mature, open forest and

fire suppression) and proposed practices of

broad-scale prescribed fire with timber harvest

on olive-sided flycatchers and other species (for

example, Lewis' woodpecker) associated with

open ponderosa pine and other fire-adapted

forest habitats. Community- and populationbased monitoring is critical for old-growth

habitats because of past (fire suppression) and

current-future (timber harvest) threats. Oldgrowth ponderosa pine forests have experienced

the greatest decline among forest types within

the interior basin (table 2).

Among all cover types within the interior basin,

shrub-steppe habitats (that is, mountain big

sagebrush, Agropyron bunchgrass, Fescue bunchgrass, and big sagebrush) have suffered the most

drastic declines (table 2). In shrub-steppe habitat, we recommend the establishment of at least

two large (ca. 1000 hectares) protected areas

(see Bock and others 1993a) that can serve as

reference areas. Currently, few shrub-steppe

habitats of adequate size are under protection

from livestock grazing except for Department of

Energy (DOE) facilities. Outside of DOE

lands, nearly every hectare has been impacted

by livestock. Thus, it often is difficult to determine the potential for vegetation, animal populations, and overall biodiversity in this ecosystem. We recommend long-term research on the

effects of livestock grazing on birds of shrubsteppe habitats. Despite the large areas involved

and long history of grazing, no significant longterm research has ever been conducted (Saab

and others 1995). Research is needed to address

the direct effects of livestock grazing, that is,

activity disturbance and trampling, as well as the

19
indirect, that is, alteration of vegetation and its

subsequent effect on productivity of selected

priority species. Other research is needed to

specifically evaluate the degree and significance

of brood parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds,

which may have important implications for sage

and Brewer's sparrows (Rich 1978, Rich and

Rothstein 1985). More detailed recommendations

with regards to livestock grazing in shrub-steppe

habitats are outlined by Saab and others (1995).

Shrub-steppe habitats have five habitat specialists, with Brewers sparrow declining at a highly

significant rate (table 1). Population monitoring

of this priority species is important because it is

an obligate of sagebrush vegetation, and research is needed to determine the cause of their

persistent population declines. Four additional

species (Western meadowlark, loggerhead

shrike, lark sparrow, and horned lark) also have

significant declines but have more general

habitat requirements. Two other shrub-steppe

species (gray flycatcher and sage sparrow) have

been identified as needing specialized monitoring to adequately track their populations.

In some portions of the interior basin, juniper

woodlands (also a priority habitat for conservation) have expanded in distribution, and tree

densities have increased due to livestock grazing

and fire suppression (Miller and Rose 1995,

West and Van Pelt 1987). Reduction and

elimination of livestock grazing (Saab and

others 1995) and restoration of natural fire

regimes (or emulation through selective harvest

with underburning) are recommended for

habitat management. The sage thrasher is the

only habitat specialist in juniper woodlands,

and they actually occur with greatest frequency

in shrub-steppe habitats. Species with significant declines that use juniper woodlands

include loggerhead shrikes and lark sparrows.

Ten species breeding in juniper habitats are not

adequately monitored, including blue-gray

gnatcatcher, black-throated gray warbler, and

ash-throated flycatcher. In juniper woodlands,

increased monitoring is needed by using point

counts (community-based), nest surveys (population and community), and additional BBS

routes because few routes incorporate this habitat.

Native grasslands are naturally rare within the

interior basin and few species breed in this

limited habitat. Grasslands have three habitat

specialists, which include clay-colored sparrow,

bobolink, and upland sandpiper. The claycolored sparrow is peripheral in the planning

area, and the latter two species are both widespread in North America. Therefore, the future

of their populations will likely not depend on

management within the interior basin. Most

notable about this priority habitat is that 8 of

14 species with significant population declines

use grasslands. The relative contribution of

grasslands to the total breeding habitat of these

species should be assessed in more detail.

Fragmentation of forested habitats has been

shown to negatively affect several species of

Northeastern (Freemark and Merriam 1986)

and Midwestern forests ( Robinson and others

1995, Thompson 1993, Thompson and others

1992). Yet little research has been conducted on

the effects of habitat fragmentation on populations of migratory birds in the West (Lehmkuhl

and Ruggiero 1991, McGarigal and McComb

1995, Rosenburg and Raphael 1986). Research

is needed to evaluate the effects of habitat

fragmentation on populations of migratory

birds in riparian forests, old-growth/mature

forests, shrub-steppe, juniper, and grassland

habitats.

Management Recommendations

The lack of consistent patterns in population

declines within and across habitats indicates

that no one management scheme will uniformly

benefit Neotropical migrants as a group. Successful ecosystem management must simultaneously consider several taxa, several levels of

organization (that is, at the population, species,

and community levels), and several spatial scales

(Allen and Hoekstra 1992, Noss 1992). Additionally, in the long term, ecosystem management of high-priority habitats at local and

regional scales will need to be coordinated with

an international strategy focusing on maintaining and restoring breeding, wintering, migrating, and staging habitats.

Basin-wide coordination of inventory and

monitoring efforts will provide the baseline,

site-specific information on distribution and

abundance necessary to effectively implement

management and conservation efforts for

NTMB populations. Demographic information

20
on selected species and recommended research

efforts must augment inventory and monitoring

to develop management plans. Guidelines are

needed for the identification, protection, and

management of quality habitats within the five

priority habitats. Through research and monitoring, habitat and landscape features that most

influence avian fitness will be identified. This

information will allow us to develop guidelines

for determining high-quality habitats that

support population sources. Subsequently,

critical areas for protection and acquisition, and

gaps in protected areas can be identified basinwide (Caicco and others 1995). Site-specific

management plans then could be developed for

selected areas.

Of the management themes considered in this

assessment, more species (63 of 132) are predicted to be more negatively affected by consumptive demand than any other theme (figs. 4

and 5), followed by no action (44 species), and

active management (23). Passive management

affected the fewest species, thereby resulting in

only 16 (12 percent) species of high concern to

management (index > 9). Based on the criteria

used to derive the management concern indices,

mean management index values were not

statistically different for active (6.93 ±0.18)

and passive (6.70 ± 0.21) management. This

suggests that in the long term, the number of

NTMB species negatively affected by these two

management themes would be similar. Active

management negatively affects few species and

has the goal to restore ecosystem functions and

processes over the long term (100-year period),

thus, it is likely to result in conditions improved

over the current (no action theme).

Acknowledgments

This assessment was initiated by Kurt Nelson.

John Sauer of the U.S. Geological Survey,

Biological Resources Division estimated population trends from the BBS data. Chuck Aid of

the Colorado Bird Observatory interpreted the

population trend information for the Partners

In Flight data fields. Barb Wales, Jeff Jones, and

Kaz Thea provided interior Columbia River

basin information needed for this assessment.

We are especially grateful to Barb Wales for her

invaluable assistance with database management. Bobbi Fuller assisted with word processing. We thank Craig Groves, Sallie Hejl, John

Lehmkuhl, and Sharon Ritter for critical

reviews of the manuscript.

21
References

Allen, T.F.H.; Hoekstra, T.W. 1992. Toward a unified ecology. New York: Columbia University

Press. 384 p.

Andelman, S.J.; Stock, A. 1994a. Management, research and monitoring priorities for the conservation of Neotropical migratory landbirds that breed in Oregon. Olympia, WA: Washington

Natural Heritage Program, Washington Department of Natural Resources. 24 p.

Andelman, S.J.; Stock, A. 1994b. Management, research and monitoring priorities for the conservation of Neotropical migratory landbirds that breed in Washington State. Olympia, WA:

Washington Natural Heritage Program, Washington Department of Natural Resources. 25 p.

Bock, C.E.; Bock, J.H.; Smith, H.M. 1993a. Proposal for a system of Federal livestock exclosures

on public rangelands in the western United States. Conservation Biology. 7: 731-733.

Bock, C.E.; Saab, V.A.; Rich, T.; Dobkin, D.S. 1993b. Effects of livestock grazing on Neotropical

migratory landbirds in western North America. In: Finch, D.M.; Stangel, P.W, eds. Status and

management of Neotropical migratory birds; 1992 September 21-25; Estes Park, CO. Gen.

Tech. Rep. RM-229. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 296-309.

Caicco, S.L.; Scott, J.M.; Butterfield, B.; Csuti, B. 1995. A gap analysis of the management status

of the vegetation of Idaho (U.S.A.). Conservation Biology. 9: 498-511.

Carter, M.; Barker, K. 1993. An interactive database for setting conservation priorities for western

Neotropical migrants. In: Finch, D.M.; Stangel, P.W, eds. Status and management of Neotropical migratory birds; 1992 September 21-25; Estes Park, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-229. Fort

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station: 120-144.

Casey, D.; Partners in Flight, Montana Working Group. 1994. Letter to Montana PIF working

group. On file with: Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, 490 N. Meridian Rd., Kalispell, MT. 5 p.

DeSante, D.F.; Williams, O.E.; Burton, K.M. 1993. The monitoring avian productivity and

survivorship (MAPS) program: overview and progress. In: Finch, D.M.; Stangel, P.W, eds. Status

and management of Neotropical migratory birds; 1992 September 21-25; Estes Park, CO. Gen.

Tech. Rep. RM-229. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 208-222.

Dobkin, D. 1993. Neotropical migrant landbirds in the northern Rockies and Great Plains: a

handbook for conservation management. Rl-93-94, Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Region.

Ehrlich, P.R; Dobkin, D.S.; Wheye, D. 1988. The birders handbook—a guide to the natural

history of North American birds. New York: Simon & Schuster Inc. 785 p.

Finch, D.M. 1991. Population ecology, habitat requirements, and conservation of Neotropical

migratory birds. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-205. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 26 p.

Finch, D.M.; Stangel, P.W., eds. 1993. Status and management of Neotropical migratory birds.

Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-229. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 422 p.

Freemark, K.; Collins, B. 1992. Landscape ecology of birds breeding in temperate forest fragments.

In: Hagan, J.M., III; Johnston, D.W, eds. Ecology and conservation of Neotropical migrant

landbirds: 1989 December 6-9; Manomet, MA. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press:

443-454.

22
Freemark, K.E.; Merriam, H.G. 1986. Importance of area and habitat heterogeneity to bird assemblages in temperate forest fragments. Biological Conservation. 36: 115-141.

Fuller, M.R.; Mosher, J.A. 1981. Methods of detecting and counting raptors: a review. Studies in

Avian Biology. 6: 235-246.

Gregg, M.A.; Crawford, J.A.; Drut, M.S.; DeLong, A.K. 1994. Vegetational cover and predation

of sage grouse nests in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management. 58: 162-166.

Hagan, J.M. 1993. Decline of the rufous-sided towhee in the eastern United States. Auk. 110: 863-

874.

Hagan, J.M.; Johnston, D.W., eds. 1992. Ecology and conservation of Neotropical migrant

landbirds. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. 609 p.

Hann, W.J.; Long, D.G.; Menakis, J.P. [and others]. 1997. Landscape ecology assessment and

evaluation of alternatives data analysis record. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, 112 E. Poplar, Walla Walla, WA 99362.

Hejl, S.J. 1992. The importance of landscape patterns to bird diversity: a perspective from the

northern Rocky Mountains. Northwest Environmental Journal. 8: 119-137.

Hejl, S.J. 1994. Human-induced changes in bird populations in coniferous forests in western North

America during the past 100 years. Studies in Avian Biology. 15: 232-246.

Hutto, R.L. 1995a. Composition of bird communities following stand-replacement fires in northern Rocky Mountain (U.S.A.) conifer forests. Conservation Biology. 9: 1041-1058.

Hutto, R.L. 1995b. Northern region landbird monitoring program. Contract number Rl-95-05

second report. Missoula, MT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Region.

120 p.

Johnson, D.H.; Schwartz, M.D. 1993. The conservation reserve program and grassland birds.

Conservation Biology. 7: 934-937.

Knick, S.T.; Rotenberry, J.T. 1995. Landscape characteristics of fragmented shrubsteppe habitats

and breeding passerine birds. Conservation Biology. 9: 1059-1071.

Knight, R.L.; Gutzwiller, K.J. 1995. Wildlife and recreationists. Washington, DC: Island Press. 372 p.

Knopf, F.L. 1988. Conservation of steppe birds in North America. In: Goriup, P.D., ed. Ecology

and conservation of grassland birds: Proceedings of a symposium on the conservation of birds of

, steppes and steppe-like habitats, held at the 19th world conference of the International Council

for Bird Conservation; June 1986; Kingston, ON: Tech. Publ. 7:27-41. Kingston, ON. International Council for Bird Conservation.

Knopf, F.L.; Johnson, R.R.; Rich, T.D. [and others]. 1988. Conservation of riparian ecosystems in

the United States. Wilson Bulletin. 100: 272-284.

Krueper, D.J. 1993. Effects of land use practices on western riparian ecosystems. In: Finch, D.M.;

Stangel, P., eds. Status and management of Neotropical migratory birds; 1992 September 21-25;

Estes Park, CO. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-229. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 321-330.

Lehmkuhl, J.F.; Ruggiero, L.F. 1991. Forest fragmentation in the Pacific Northwest and its potential effects on wildlife. In: Ruggiero, L.F.; Aubry, K.B.; Carey, A.B.; Huff, M.H., tech. coords.

Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-285.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station: 35-46.

23
Lesica, P.; Allendorf, F.W. 1995. When are peripheral populations valuable for conservation?

Conservation Biology. 9: 753-760.

Martin, T.E. 1993. Nest predation among vegetation layers and habitat types: revising the dogmas.

American Naturalist. 141: 897-913.

Martin, T.E. 1995. Avian life history evolution in relation to nest sites, nest predation, and food.

Ecological Monographs. 65: 101-127.

Martin, T.E.; Finch, D.M., eds. 1995. Ecology and management of Neotropical migratory birds: a

synthesis and review of critical issues. New York: Oxford University Press. 416 p.

Martin, T.E.; Guepel, G.R. 1993. Protocols for nest monitoring plots: locating nests, monitoring

success, and measuring vegetation. Journal of Field Ornithology. 64: 507-519.

McCoy, M. 1993. Breeding bird survey of clearcut, prescribed burn, and seral/old growth stands of

western juniper. Boise, ID: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 39 p.

McGarigal, K.; McComb, W.C. 1995. Relationships between landscape structure and breeding

birds in the Oregon Coast Range. Ecological Monographs. 65: 235-260.

Merigliano, M.F. 1996. Ecology and management of the South Fork Snake River Cottonwood Forest.

Tech. Bull. 96-9. Boise, ID: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 79 p.

Miller, R.F.; Rose, J.A. 1995. Historic expansion of Juniperus occidentalis (western juniper) in

southeastern Oregon. Great Basin Naturalist. 55: 37-45.

Noss, R. 1992. Issues of scale in conservation biology. In: Fiedler, PL.; Jain, S.K., eds. Conservation

biology: the theory and practice of nature conservation, preservation and management. New

York: Chapman and Hall: 239-250.

Noss, R.F.; LaRoe, E.T., III; Scott, J.M. 1995. Endangered ecosystems of the United States: a

preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the

Interior, National Biological Service. 58 p.

Peterjohn, B.G.; Sauer, J.R. 1993. North American breeding bird survey annual summary 1990-

1991. Bird Populations. 1: 1-15.

Peterjohn, B. G.; Sauer, J.R.; Link, W.A. 1994. The 1992 and 1993 summary of the North American Breeding Bird Survey. Bird Populations. 2: 46-61.

Pulliam, H.R. 1988. Sources, sinks, and population regulation. American Naturalist. 132: 652-661.

Ralph, C.J.; Guepel, G.R.; Pyle, P.; Martin, T.E.; DeSante, D.F. 1993. Field methods for monitoring landbirds. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-144. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 41 p.

Rappole, J.H. 1995. Ecology of migrant birds: a Neotropical perspective. Washington, DC:

Smithsonian Institution Press. 504 p.

Rappole, J.H.; Morton, E.S.; Lovejoy, T.E., III; Ruos, J.L. 1993. Aves migratorius nearticas en los

neotropicos. Washington, DC: Conservation and Research Center, National Zoological Par,

Smithsonian Institution. 341 p.

Reynolds, T.D.; Trost, C.H. 1980. The response of native vertebrate populations to crested wheatgrass planting and grazing by sheep. Journal of Range Management. 33: 122-125.

Rich, T.D. 1978. Cowbird parasitism of sage and Brewer's sparrows. Condor. 80: 348.

Rich, T.D.; Rothstein, S.I. 1985. Sage thrashers reject cowbird eggs. Condor. 87: 561-562.

24
Ritter, S.; Partners in Flight, Idaho Working Group. 1994. Letter to Idaho PIF working group 5 p

On file with Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 600 S Walnut, Boise, ID

Robbins, C.S.; Sauer, J.R.; Greenberg, R.; Droege, S. 1989. Population declines in North American birds that migrate to the Neotropics Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 86

7658-7662

Robinson, S.K. 1992. Population dynamics of breeding Neotropical migrants in a fragmented

Illinois landscape In Hagan, J M , III, Johnston, D W, eds Ecology and conservation of

Neotropical migrant landbuds, 1989 December 6-9, Manomet, MA Washington, DC

Smithsonian Institution Press 408-418

Robinson, S.K.; Grzybowski, J.A.; Rothstein, S.I. [and others]. 1993. Management implications of

cowbird parasitism on Neotropical migrant songbirds In Finch, D M , Stangel, P, eds Status

and management of Neotropical migratory birds, 1992 September 21-25, Estes Park, CO Gen

Tech Rep RM-229 Fort Collins, CO U S Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Forest and Range Expenment Station 93-102

Robinson, S K ; Thompson, F.R., III; Donovan, T.M. [and others]. 1995. Regional forest fragmentation and the nesting success of migratory birds Science 267 1987-1990

Rosenberg, K V.; Raphael, M G. 1986 Effects of forest fragmentation on vertebrates in Douglas-fir

forests In Verner, J , Morrison, M L , Ralph, C J , eds Wildlife 2000 modeling habitat relationships of terrestrial vertebrates Madison, WI University of Wisconsin Press 263-272

Saab, V.A. 1996 Influences of spatial scale and land-use practices on habitat relationships of breeding birds in cottonwood riparian forests Boulder, CO University of Colorado 140 p Ph D

dissertation

Saab, V.; Groves, C. 1992. Idaho's migratory landbirds description, habitats, and conservation

Idaho Wildlife 12 11-26

Saab, V.A.; Bock, C.E., Rich, T.D.; Dobkin, D.S. 1995. Livestock grazing effects in western North

America In Martin, TE , Finch, D M , eds Ecology and management of Neotropical migratory

birds a synthesis and review of critical issues New York, NY Oxford University Press 311-353

Terborgh, J. 1989. Where have all the birds gone ? Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press 207 p

Thomas, J.W.; Maser, C; Rodiek, J.E. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed rangelands—the great

basin of southeastern Oregon riparian zones Gen Tech Rep PNW-80 Portland, OR US

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment

Station 18 p

Thompson, F.R. 1993. Simulated responses of a forest-interior bird population to forest management options in central hardwood forests of the United States Conservation Biology 7 325-333

Thompson, F.R.; Dijak, W.D.; Kulowiec, T.G.; Hamilton, D.A. 1992. Breeding bird populations in

Missouri Ozark forests with and without clearcutting Journal of Wildlife Management 56 23-30

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants, final rule

determining endangered status for the southwestern willow flycatcher 27 February 1995 Federal

Register 60 (38) 10694-10715

West, N.E.; Van Pelt, S. 1987. Successional patterns in pinyon-juniper woodlands In Everett,

R L , ed Proceedings—pinyon-juniper conference, 1986 January 13-16, Reno, NV Gen Tech

Rep INT-215 Ogden, UT U S Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain

Research Station 43-52

Woods, C.P., Cade, TJ 1996 Nesting habits of the loggerhead shrike in sagebrush The Condor

98 75-81

25
Appendix 1

Following is a list of Neotropical migratory land-bird species breeding in

the interior Columbia River basin, grouped by habitat association:

Old-growth/mature coniferous forest

Mourning dove

Zenaida macroura

Sharp-shinned hawk

Accipiter striatus

Cooper's hawk

Accipiter cooperii

Northern goshawk

Accipiter gentilis

Red-tailed hawk

Bu teo jamaicensis

Golden eagle

Aquila chrysaetos

American kestrel

Falco sparverius

Long-eared owl

Asio otus

Flammulated owl

Otus flammeolus

Red-naped sapsucker

Sphyrapicus nuchalis

Red-breasted sapsucker

Sphyrapicus ruber

Williamson's sapsucker

Sphyrapicus thyroideus

Lewis' woodpecker

Melanerpes lewis

Northern flicker

Colaptes auratus

Common poorwill

Phalaenoptilus nuttalli

Common nighthawk

Chordeiles minor

Vaux's swift

Chaetura vauxi

Broad-tailed hummingbird

Selasphorus platycercus

Calliope hummingbird

Stellula calliope

Olive-sided flycatcher

Contopus borealis

Western wood-pewee

Contopus sordidulus

Cordilleran flycatcher

Empidonax occidentalis

Hammond's flycatcher

Empidonax hammondii

Dusky flycatcher

Empidonax oberholseri

Cassin's finch

Carpodacus cassinii

Red crossbill

Losiz curvirostra

Pine siskin

Carduelis pinus

Chipping sparrow

Spizella passerina

Dark-eyed junco

Junco hyemalis

Western tanager

Piranga ludoviciana

Violet-green swallow

Tachycineta thalassina

Solitary vireo

Vireo solitarius

Tennessee warbler

Vermivora peregrina

Yellow-rumped warbler

Dendroica petechia

Townsend's warbler

Dendroica townsendi

Hermit warbler

Dendroica occidentalis

House wren

Troglodytes aedon

Brown creeper

Certhia americana

Golden-crowned kinglet

Regulus satrapa

Ruby-crowned kinglet

Regulus calendula

Townsend's solitare

Myadestes townsendi

Swainson's thrush

Catharus ustulatus

Hermit thrush

Catharus guttatus

American robin

Turdus migratorius

Western bluebird

Sialia mexicana

26
Mountai

n bluebird

Sialia currucoides

Young coniferous forest

Mourning dove

Turkey vulture

Cathartes aura

Sharp-shinned hawk

Cooper's hawk

Northern goshawk

Red-tailed hawk

Merlin

Falco columbanus

American kestrel

Osprey

Pandion haliaetus

Long-eared owl

Red-naped sapsucker

Red-breasted sapsucker

Northern flicker

Common poorwill

Common nighthawk

Broad-tailed hummingbird

Rufous hummingbird

Selasphorus rufus

Calliope hummingbird

Olive-sided flycatcher

Western wood-pewee

Cordilleran flycatcher

Hammond's flycatcher

Dusky flycatcher

Cassin's finch

Red crossbill

Pine siskin

Chipping sparrow

Dark-eyed junco

Black-headed grosbeak

Pheucticus melanocephalus

Western tanager

Violet-green swallow

Warbling vireo

Vireo gilvus

Solitary vireo

Nashville warbler

Vermivora ruficapilla

Tennessee warbler

Yellow-rumped warbler

Townsend's warbler

Hermit warbler

MacGillivray's warbler

Oporornis tolmiei

American redstart

Setophaga ruticilla

House wren

Brown creeper

Golden-crowned kinglet

Ruby-crowned kinglet

Townsend's solitare

Swainson's thrush

Hermit thrush

American robin

Western bluebird

Mountain bluebird

Clearcut/seedling/shrub coniferous forest

Mourning dove

Turkey vulture

Red-tailed Hawk

Golden eagle

American kestrel

Northern flicker

Common poorwill

Common nighthawk

Black-chinned hummingbird

Archilochus alexandri

Broad-tailed hummingbird

Calliope hummingbird

Olive-sided flycatcher

Dusky flycatcher

Gray flycatcher

Empidonax wnghtii

Brown-headed cowbird

Molothrus ater

Pine siskin

Chipping sparrow

Dark-eyed junco

Fox sparrow

Passerella iliaca

Green-tailed towhee

Pipilo chlorurus

Nashville warbler

MacGillivray's warbler

House wren

Townsend's solitare

Hermit thrush

American robin

Western bluebird

Mountain bluebird

Mountain shrub/prairie brushfield

Mourning dove

Turkey vulture

Red-tailed hawk

American kestrel

Common poorwill

27
Black-chinne

d hummingbird

Rufous hummingbird

Calliope hummingbird

Dusky flycatcher

Clay-colored sparrow

Spizella pallida

Fox sparrow

Spotted towhee

Pipilo maculatus

Green-tailed towhee

Black-headed grosbeak

Blue grosbeak

Guiraca caerulea

Lazuli bunting

Passerina amoena

Virginia's warbler

Vermivora virnniae

Nashville warbler

Orange-crowned warbler

Vermivora celata

MacGillivray's warbler

Blue-gray gnatcatcher

Polioptila caerulea

American robin

Western bluebird

Grasslands

Upland sandpiper

Bartramia longicauda

Long-billed curlew

Numemus americanus

Killdeer

Charadrius vociferus

Mourning dove

Turkey vulture

Northern harrier

Circus cyaneus

Red-tailed hawk

Swainson's hawk

Buteo swainsoni

Ferruginous hawk

Buteo regalis

Golden eagle

Prairie falcon

Falco mexicanus

Peregrine falcon

Falco peregrinus

American kestrel

Short-eared owl

Asio flammeus

Burrowing owl

Athene cunicularia

Common poorwill

Common nighthawk

White-throated swift

Aeronautes saxatalis

Western kingbird

Tyrannus verticalis

Say's pheobe

Sayornis saya

Horned lark

Eremophila alpestris

Bobolink

Dolichonyx oryzivorus

Brown-headed cowbird

Western meadowlark

Sturnella nevlecta

Brewer's blackbird

Eupbagus carolinus

Vesper sparrow

Pooecetes gramineus

Savannah sparrow

Passerculus sandwichensis

Grasshopper sparrow

Ammodramus savannarum

Lark sparrow

Chondestes grammacus

Clay-colored sparrow

Sage sparrow

Amphisipiza belli

Lark bunting

Calamospiza melanocorys

Cliff swallow

Hirundo fulva

Loggerhead shrike

Lanius ludovicianus

Rock wren

Salpinctes obsoletus

Blue-gray gnatcatcher

Mountain bluebird

Shrub-steppe

Long-billed curlew

Mourning dove

Turkey vulture

Northern harrier

Red-tailed hawk

Swainson's hawk

Ferruginous hawk

Golden eagle

Prairie falcon

Peregrine falcon

Merlin

American kestrel

28
Short-eare

d owl

Burrowing owl

Common poorwill

Common nighthawk

White-throated swift

Black-chinned hummingbird

Western kingbird

Ash-throated flycatcher

Myiarchus cinerascens

Say's phoebe

Gray flycatcher

Horned lark

Brown-headed cowbird

Western meadowlark

Bullock's oriole

Icterus bullockii

Brewer's blackbird

Lesser goldfinch

Carduelis psaltria

Vesper sparrow

Grasshopper sparrow

Lark sparrow

Brewer's sparrow

Spizella breweri

Black-throated sparrow

Amphispiza bilineata

Sage sparrow

Green-tailed towhee

Lark bunting

Cliff swallow

Northern rough-winged swallow

Stelgidopteryx serripennis

Loggerhead shrike

Sage thrasher

Oreoscoptes montanus

Northern mockingbird

Mimus polyglottus

Rock wren

Mountain bluebird

Juniper woodlands

Mourning dove

Turkey vulture

Red-tailed hawk

Swainson's hawk

Ferruginous hawk

Golden eagle

Prairie falcon

Merlin

American kestrel

Long-eared owl

Burrowing owl

Northern flicker

Common poorwill

Common nighthawk

White-throated swift

Broad-tailed hummingbird

Ash-throated flycatcher

Say's phoebe

Gray flycatcher

Western meadowlark

Cassin's finch

Lesser goldfinch

Pine siskin

Vesper sparrow

Lark sparrow

Chipping sparrow

Dark-eyed junco

Sage sparrow

Green-tailed towhee

Lazuli bunting

Western tanager

Piranga ludoviciana

Cedar waxwing

Bombycilia cedrorum

Loggerhead shrike

Virginia's warbler

Black-throated gray warbler

Dendroica nigrescens

Sage thrasher

Rock wren

Ruby-crowned kinglet

Blue-gray gnatcatcher

Townsend's solitare

American robin

Western bluebird

Mountain bluebird

Alpine

Golden eagle

Northern flicker

Rufous hummingbird

Calliope hummingbird

Olive-sided flycatcher

Chipping sparrow

Dark-eyed junco

Lincoln's sparrow

Melospiza lincolnii

Fox sparrow

Lazuli bunting

Wilson's warbler

Wilsonia pusilla

American pipit

Anthus spinoletta

29
Hermi

t thrush

Mountain bluebird

Freshwater marshes, ponds, lakes

Long-billed curlew

Killdeer

Northern harrier

Red-tailed hawk

Peregrine falcon

Osprey

Pandion haliaetus

Short-eared owl

Belted kingfisher

Ceryle alcyon

Black swift

Cypseloides niger

Eastern kingbird

Tyrannus tyrannus

Brown-headed cowbird

Yellow-headed blackbird

Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus

Red-winged blackbird

Agelaius phoeniceus

Tri-colored blackbird

Agelaius tricolor

Savannah sparrow

Song sparrow

Melospiza melodia

Purple martin

Progne subis

Cliffswallow

Barn swallow

Hirundo rustic a

Tree swallow

Tachycineta bicolor

Violet-green swallow

Tachycineta thalassina

Bank swallow

Riparia riparia

Northern rough-winged swallow

Northern waterthrush

Seiurus noveboracensis

Common yellowthroat

Geothlypis trichas

Yellow-breasted chat

Icteria virens

Marsh wren

Cistothorus palustris

Riparian

Killdeer

Mourning dove

Sharp-shinned hawk

Cooper's hawk

Northern goshawk

Red-tailed hawk

Swainson's hawk

Golden eagle

Merlin

American kestrel

Osprey

Long-eared owl

Yellow-billed cuckoo

Coccyzus americanus

Black-billed cuckoo

Coccyzus erythropthalmus

Belted kingfisher

Red-naped sapsucker

Red-breasted sapsucker

Williamson's sapsucker

Lewis' woodpecker

Northern flicker

Common nighthawk

Black swift

Vaux's swift

Chaetura vauxi

White-throated swift

Black-chinned hummingbird

Broad-tailed hummingbird

Rufous hummingbird

Calliope hummingbird

Eastern kingbird

Western kingbird

Ash-throated flycatcher

Western wood-pewee

Willow flycatcher

Empidonax trailii

Least flycatcher

Empidonax minimus

Hammond's flycatcher

Dusky flycatcher

Brown-headed cowbird

Northern mockingbird

Bullock's oriole

Brewer's blackbird

Cassins finch

Red crossbill

American goldfinch

Carduelis tristis

White-crowned sparrow

Zonotrichia leucophrys

Dark-eyed junco

Song sparrow

Lincoln's sparrow

30
Fo

x sparrow

Spotted towhee

Black-headed grosbeak

Blue grosbeak

Lazuli bunting

Western tanager

Purple martin

Cliff swallow

Barn swallow

Tree swallow

Violet-green swallow

Bank swallow

Northern rough-winged swallow

Cedar waxwing

Red-eyed vireo

Vireo olivaceus

Warbling vireo

Vireo gilvus

Solitary vireo

Vireo solitarius

Virginia's warbler

Nashville warbler

Orange-crowned warbler

Yellow warbler

Dendroica petechia

Yellow-rumped warbler

Black-throated gray warbler

Dendroica nigrescens

Northern waterthrush

MacGillivray's warbler

Common yellowthroat

Yellow-breasted chat

Wilson's warbler

Wilsonia pusilla

American redstart

Gray catbird

Dumetella carolinensis

House wren

Blue-gray gnatcatcher

Veery

Catharus fuscescens

Swainson's thrush

American robin

Western bluebird

Wet, dry, hay meadows

Upland sandpiper

Long-billed curlew

Killdeer

Northern harrier

Red-tailed hawk

Swainson's hawk

Golden eagle

Prairie falcon

American kestrel

Long-eared owl

Short-eared owl

Burrowing owl

Common poorwill

Common nighthawk

Broad-tailed hummingbird

Rufous hummingbird

Calliope hummingbird

Eastern kingbird

Horned lark

Bobolink

Yellow-headed blackbird

Western meadowlark

Brewer's blackbird

Vesper sparrow

Savannah sparrow

White-crowned sparrow

Lincoln's sparrow

Red-winged blackbird

Agelaius phoeniceus

Tree swallow

Common yellowthroat

American pipit

American robin

Oak woodlands

Mourning dove

Turkey vulture

Sharp-shinned hawk

Cooper's hawk

Red-tailed hawk

American kestrel

Lewis' woodpecker

Northern flicker

Common nighthawk

Rufous hummingbird

Western kingbird

Ash-throated flycatcher

Western wood-pewee

Brown-headed cowbird

Bullock's oriole

American goldfinch

Lark sparrow

Chipping sparrow

Dark-eyed junco

Spotted towhee

Black-headed grosbeak

Western tanager

Warbling vireo

31
Nashvill

e warbler

Orange-crowned warbler

Yellow-rumped warbler

Black-throated gray warbler

House wren

Western bluebird

Aspen

Mourning dove

Turkey vulture

Sharp-shinned hawk

Cooper's hawk

Northern goshawk

Red-tailed hawk

Swainson's hawk

Ferruginous hawk

Golden eagle

American kestrel

Long-eared owl

Flammulated owl

Red-naped sapsucker

Red-breasted sapsucker

Williamson's sapsucker

Northern flicker

Common poorwill

Common nighthawk

Broad-tailed hummingbird

Rufous hummingbird

Calliope hummingbird

Western wood-pewee

Cordilleran flycatcher

Hammond's flycatcher

Dusky flycatcher

Cassin's finch

White-crowned sparrow

Dark-eyed junco

Lazuli bunting

Western tanager

Tree swallow

Violet-green swallow

Warbling vireo

Red-eyed vireo

Orange-crowned warbler

Yellow-rumped warbler

Northern waterthrush

House wren

Swainson's thrush

American robin

Western bluebird

Mountain bluebird

Cliff, rocks, talus

Turkey vulture

Red-tailed hawk

Ferruginous hawk

Golden eagle

Prairie falcon

Peregrine falcon

American kestrel

Black swift

White-throated swift

Cliff swallow

Violet-green swallow

Rock wren

American robin

Urban

Killdeer

Mourning dove

Cooper's hawk

Peregrine falcon

American kestrel

Northern flicker

Vaux's swift

Black-chinned hummingbird

Rufous hummingbird

Western wood-pewee

Brown-headed cowbird

Red-winged blackbird

Bullock's oriole

Brewer's blackbird

Purple finch

Carpodacus purpureus

American goldfinch

Chipping sparrow

Song sparrow

Spotted towhee

Black-headed grosbeak

Western tanager

Purple martin

Cliff swallow

Barn swallow

Tree swallow

Violet-green swallow

Cedar waxwing

House wren

American robin

Agriculture/pastureland

Killdeer

Mourning dove

Turkey vulture

32
Norther

n harrier

Red-tailed hawk

Swainson's hawk

Golden eagle

Prairie falcon

American kestrel

Short-eared owl

Burrowing owl

Red-breasted sapsucker

Vaux's swift

Rufous hummingbird

Eastern kingbird

Western kingbird

Say's phoebe

Western wood-pewee

Horned lark

Brown-headed cowbird

Yellow-headed blackbird

Red-winged blackbird

Tri-colored blackbird

Western meadowlark

Bullock's oriole

Brewer's blackbird

Purple finch

American goldfinch

Lesser goldfinch

Vesper sparrow

Savannah sparrow

Grasshopper sparrow

Lark sparrow

Chipping sparrow

Spotted towhee

Black-headed grosbeak

Purple martin

Cliff swallow

Barn swallow

Tree swallow

Violet-green swallow

Cedar waxwing

House wren

American robin

Western bluebird

33
Appendix 2

Criteria and definitions used in appendix 7 to derive management indices

for each species

The following database fields are from the Colorado Bird Observatory database (Carter and Barker

1993):

1. Population trend (PT) rank

1. Large increase: Stable or increasing with uncertainty of 1 or > = 5 percent annual increase

with uncertainty of 2.

2. Increase: Stable or increasing with uncertainty of 2 or uncertainty of 3 with > = 1 percent

annual increase.

3. Trend unknown: Trend is between -1.0 percent and 1.0 percent exclusive and/or uncertainty is 4 or 5.

4. Decrease: Decreasing with uncertainty of 2 or uncertainty of 3 with > = 1 percent

annual decrease.

5. Large decrease: Decreasing with uncertainty of 1 or > = -5 percent annual decrease with

uncertainty of 2.

2. Population trend uncertainty (PTU) rank

1. Fourteen or more routes with statistical significance and significant proportion of increasing and decreasing routes agree with overall trend.

2. Fourteen or more routes with statistical significance and proportion of increasing and

decreasing routes agreeing with overall trend.

3. Fourteen or more routes without statistical significance and/or the proportion of increasing and decreasing routes do not agree with overall trend.

4. Sample size for species from BBS is insufficient.

5. No quantitative monitoring information exists for species in the area.

3. Breeding distribution (BD)

Breeding distribution identifies the total breeding range of the species relative to the interior basin.

A value of 5 indicates a species breeding in interior basin whose range is confined to less than 10

percent of North America, making it very local to the basin.

1. Very widespread: > = 76-100 percent of temperate North America.

2. Widespread: 51-75 percent of temperate North America.

3. Intermediate: 26-50 percent of temperate North America.

4. Local: 11-25 percent of temperate North America.

5. Very local: < = 10 percent of temperate North America.

The following database fields are additional fields adopted from Andelman and Stock 1994a,

1994b.

4. Evidence of decline (ED)

The population trends of uncertainties were used to identify an evidence of decline (ED) value for

each species. The criterion for each ED rank value follows:

5 (PT10/PT26 = 3 or 4 and PTU10/PTU26 = 2 or 3)

5 (PT10/PT26 = 4 or 5 and PTU10/PTU26 = 1 or 2)

1 (PT10/PT26 = 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 and PTU10/PTU26 = 3, 4 or 5)

0 (PT10/PT26 = 1 or 2 and PTU10/PTU26 = 1 or 2)

0 (PT10/PT26 = 1 or 2 and PTU10/PTU26 = 2 or 3)

34
5. Habitat

Several habitat assignments were given for each species based on PIF state reports (see "Methods").

Habitat assignments based on breeding or foraging habits, or both, while breeding. A list of habitats

and associated numerical codes is provided in appendix 4.

6. Habitat rank

Assignment of a qualitative habitat risk ranking based on management theme threats to habitat loss,

conversion and fragmentation in the interior basin (see appendix 4). Possible rank values are:

5 = High threat of habitat loss, conversion, or fragmentation

3 = Medium threat

1 = Low threat

0 = Little or no threat

7. Threats to habitat (TH)

A threats to habitat (TH) value was assigned to each species based on the habitat risk rankings of

each habitat assigned to the species. If a species was associated with > 1 habitat, then the threats to

habitat value was calculated as the sum of the habitat risk rankings divided by the total number of

habitats used by the species.

8. Habitat specialization (HS)

A habitat specialization (HS) rank was assigned by taking the value for habitat threats divided by the

total number of habitats used by each species.

9. Management index

This value provides an index of need for management considerations.

Mgmt. index = ED + TH + HS + BD.

35
Appendix 3

Cross reference of 16 habitats for the Neotropical migratory birds

(NTMB) analysis and aggregations of interior basin cover types and

structural stages

NTMB habitats

1. Old-growth and mature coniferous forest

2. Young coniferous forest

Columbia River basin cover types

Structural stages:

Old multistrata

Old singlestrata

Cover types:

Pacific silver fir-mountain hemlock

(Abies amabilis)-(Tsuga mertensiana)

Grand fir-white fir

(Abies grandis)-(Abies concolor)

White bark pine-alpine larch

(Pinus albicaulis)-(Larix lyallit)

Red fir

(Abies procerd)

Mountain hemlock

Engleman spruce-subalpine fir

(Picea engelmanii)-(Abies lasiocarpa)

Whitebark pine

Interior douglas-fir

(Pseudotsuga menziesii)

Western larch

(Larix occidentalis)

Western white pine

(Pinus monticold)

Lodgepole pine

(Pinus contorta)

Limber pine

(Pinus flexis)

Western redcedar-western hemlock

(Thuja plicata)-(Tsuga heterophylla)

Interior ponderosa pine

(Pinus ponderosa)

Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer

Pacific Ponderosa Pine

Structural stages:

Stem exclusion closed

Stem exclusion open

Understory reinitiation

36
3. Clearcut/seedling/shrub coniferous forest

4. Mountain shrub/prairie brushfield

Young/mutlistrata

Cover types:

Pacific silver fir-mountain hemlock

Grand fir-white fir

White bark pine-alpine larch

Red fir

Mountain hemlock

Engleman spruce-subalpine fir

Whitebark pine

Interior douglas-fir

Western larch

Western white pine

Lodgepole pine

Limber pine

Western redcedar-western hemlock

Interior ponderosa pine

Sierra Nevada mixed conifer

Pacific ponderosa pine

Structural stages:

Stand initiation

Cover types:

Pacific silver fir-mountain hemlock

Grand fir-white fir

White bark pine-alpine larch

Red fir

Mountain hemlock

Engleman spruce-subalpine fir

Whitebark pine

Interior douglas fir

Western larch

Western white pine

Lodgepole pine

Limber pine

Western redcedar-western hemlock

Interior ponderosa pine

Sierra Nevada mixed conifer

Pacific ponderosa pine

Structure stages:

Closed herb

Open low shrub

Open medium shrub

Open tall shrub

Cover types:

Seral shrub-regeneration

Structure stages:

All

Cover types:

Chokecherry-serviceberry-rose

(Prunus spp.)-(Amelanchier spp.)-

37
5. Grasslands

6. Shrub-steppe

7. Juniper woodlands

(Rosa spp.)

Structure stages:

All

Cover types:

Open grassland

Bluebunch wheatgrass

{Agropyron spicatum)

Idaho fescue-bluebunch wheatgrass

(Festuca idahoensis)

Wheatgrass-needlegrass

(Agropyron spp.)-(Stipa spp.)

Crested wheatgrass

(Agropyron cristatum)

Exotics

Structure stages:

All

Cover types:

Bitterbrush-bluebunch wheatgrass

(Purshia tridentata)

Mountain mahogany

(Cercocarpus ledifolius)

Basin big sagebrush

(Artemisia tridentata tridentata)

Mountain big sagebrush

(Artemisia tridentata vaseyana)

Wyoming big sagebrush

(Artemisia tridentata wyomingensis)

Low sage

(Artemisia arbuscula)

Salt desert shrub

Structure stages:

All

Cover types:

Utah juniper-big sage-bluebunch

wheatgrass

(Juniperus osteosperma)-(Artemisia

spp.)- (Agropyron spp.)

Juniper woodlands

(Juniperus spp.)

Mixed-conifer woodlands

Juniper-big sage-bluebunch

wheatgrass

Western juniper-big sagebrush38
39

bluebunch wheatgrass

(Juniperus occidentalis)

8. Alpine Structure stages:

All

Cover types:

Barren

9. Freshwater marshes, ponds, lakes Structure stages:

All

Cover types:

Herbaceous wetlands

Water

10. Riparian Structure stages:

All

Cover types:

Herbaceous wetland-shrub

Cottonwood-willow

(Populus spp.)-(Salix spp.)

11. Wet, dry, hay meadows Structure stages:

All

Cover types:

Native forb

12. Oak woodlands Structure stages:

All

Cover types:

Oregon white oak

(Quercus garryand)

13. Aspen Structure stages:

All

Cover types:

Aspen

(Populus tremuloides)

14. Cliffs, rocks, talus Structure stages:

Cliffs, rocks, talus

Cover types:

Cliffs, rocks, talus

15. Urban Structure stages:

Urban

Cover types:

Urban

16. Agriculture/pastureland Structure stages:

All

Cover types:

Irrigated cropland and pasture

Dry cropland and pasture
40

Appendix 4

Table 6—Rationale for habitat risk rankings under current management or the no

action themea

Habitat Rank Rationale

1. Old-growth/mature coniferous forest 5 Old-growth policy not established;

high levels of concern for oldgrowth ponderosa pine forests in

particular; being logged at rapid

rate; long-term fire suppression

policies.

2. Young coniferous forest 1 Managed for single-species tree

production; forest health and

salvage policy; low concern as

habitat-land use areas not limiting.

3. Clearcut/seedling/shrub coniferous 1 Not limiting in current rotations;

some Forest concern because

this system is replaced more

rapidly than would occur naturally.

4. Mountain shrub/prairie brush field 3 High-intensity grazing; fire

suppression; invasion of exotics.

Some conversion due to

development pressures.

5. Grasslands 5 Rare habitat in region with patchy

distribution with insufficient

inventory; fire suppression; highintensity grazing with no plan of

reducing; invasion of exotics.

6. Shrub-steppe 5 Habitat generally in poor condition;

high-intensity grazing; fire sup -

pression; agricultural conversion,

introduction-invasion of exotic

species (for example, crested

wheat grass, cheat grass).

7. Juniper woodlands 3 High-intensity grazing, erosion and

fire suppression affecting productivity; control of pioneering junipers; commercial logging of old

stands.

8. Alpine 1 Most habitat protected in highelevation wilderness areas; some

areas could be impacted by

recreational activities, and others

are grazed by sheep, fewer by

cattle.
9 Freshwater marshes, ponds, lakes 3 Except for mountain lakes and

ponds, habitat rare in region, fill

controlled by permit, but risk from

development proposals,

eutrophication, channelization

10 Riparian 5 Risk of damage particularly serious

due to high-intensity grazing,

recreation pressure, water control

preventing regeneration, restoration

policies of land management

agencies need to be addressed and

coordinated

11 Wet, dry, hay meadows 3 Heavy grazing, pressure in some

areas, soil compaction, recreation

pressure, watershed issues—

sedimentation and erosion

12 Oak woodlands 5 Habitat has declined significantly and

trend continues, conversion to

agriculture, urban growth, fire

suppression, grazing preventing

regeneration, cutting for firewood

13 Aspen 3 Heavy grazing, logging, and fire

suppression

14 Cliffs, rocks, talus 1 Risks limited, however

mineral-aggregate extraction and

recreational rock climbing are

threats, some planning regulations

for control activities

15 Urban 0 No risk, area will increase

16 Agnculture/pastureland 0 Not limiting, influencing land use

management policy for wildlife

may be appropriate

a

The qualitative ranking represents relative habitat quality loss or conversion based on recent management activities

(following Andelman and Stock 1994a)

41
Table 7—Rationale for habitat risk rankings under the consumptive demand theme over a 100-

year period, developed by interior basin staff biologists

Habitat Rank Rationale

1. Old-growth/mature coniferous forest 5 High levels of concern for old-growth. Policy for

old-growth protection not established. Oldgrowth ponderosa pine of particular concern.

Logging rate of old-growth will continue at high

levels.

2. Young coniferous forest 1 Not limiting.

3. Clearcut/seedling/shrub coniferous forest 1 Not limiting.

4. Mountain shrub/prairie brush field 4 High levels of grazing and fire suppression in

combination with the high risk of invasion

of exotics leave this community at risk.

5. Grasslands 5 Rare habitat type with patchy distribution within

the assessment area. High levels of grazing

and fire-suppression activities in combination

with the high risk of invasion or introduction of

exotics leave this community at high risk.

6. Shrub-steppe 5 Same as habitat type 5.

7. Juniper woodlands 5 Similar risks as in type 5; however, risk of afforestation (control of pioneering juniper) as well

as logging of old stands of juniper also of concern.

8. Alpine 3 Though somewhat protected mostly in wilderness areas, there is a risk due to livestock

grazing as well as invasion of exotics through

nonnative livestock (including pack animals).

Fragile ecosystem.

9. Freshwater marshes, ponds, lakes 5 High risk due to development proposals,

eutrophication, channelization, invasion of

nonnative vertebrate and plant species.

10. Riparian 5 High levels of grazing, logging, and road

building leave riparian areas at high risk.

11. Wet, dry, hay meadows 5 Heavy grazing pressures, fire suppression,

and risk to exotics leave this community

at high risk. Also of concern is soil compaction

and increasing sedimentation.

12. Oak woodlands 5 Continued high risk to oak woodlands due to

high levels of grazing, firewood cutting, fire

suppression, and development proposals.

13. Aspen 5 High levels of logging, grazing, and fire suppression continue to leave this community

at high risk.

14. Cliffs, rocks, talus 1 Though this community is relatively secure, risk

to inappropriate mineral/aggregate extraction

is present.

15. Urban 0 Not limiting.

16. Agriculture/pastureland 0 Not limiting.

42
Table 8—Rationale for habitat risk rankings under the active management theme over a 100-year

period, developed by interior basin staff biologists

Habitat Rank Rationale

1 Old-growth/mature coniferous forest 3 Risk to old-growth is moderate because of

logging of stands with high levels of insect

and disease and the risk to loss through

wildfires Prescribed fires would help reduce

the risk of high-intensity wildfire

2 Young coniferous forest 1 Not limiting

3 Clearcut/seedling/shrub coniferous forest 2 Not limiting

4 Mountain shrub/prairie brushfield 1 Control of livestock grazing to provide for ecosystem function and control of exotics provide

for healthy communities of mountain shrub/

prairie brushfields

5 Grasslands 3 Rare habitat with patchy distribution within the

assessment area Control of grazing and using

effective management techniques to control

exotics where possible will have positive

effects Prescribed fires where effective also

may be useful

6 Shrub-steppe 3 Widespread habitat in the interior basin otherwise same as habitat 5

7 Juniper woodlands 5 Though somewhat similar to 5, the risk of

afforestation (control of pioneering juniper) as

well as logging of juniper stands is of high

concern for this community

8 Alpine 1 Most of this habitat is protected in high-elevation

areas, with little threat to resource extraction

9 Freshwater marshes, ponds, lakes 3 Moderate risk due to development proposals,

eutrophication, channelization, and invasion

of nonnative vertebrate and plant species

10 Riparian 3 Risk to riparian areas is rated as moderate

because of some grazing, logging, water

control, and recreation

11 Wet, dry, hay meadows 2 Through control of grazing and invasion of

exotics, these communities, though scarce are

at a fairly low risk

12 Oak woodlands 3 Risk to oak woodlands is moderate because of

grazing pressure, firewood extraction, and

development proposals

13 Aspen 1 Through use of effective restoration activities,

and control of grazing, the risk to aspen

communities are low

14 Cliffs, rocks, talus 1 Though these communities are relatively

secure, risk to inappropriate mineral/aggregate

extraction is present

15 Urban 0 Not limiting

16 Agnculture/pastureland 0 Not limiting

43
Table 9—Rationale for habitat risk rankings under the passive management theme over a 100-

year period, developed by interior basin staff biologists

Habitat Rank Rationale

1 Old-growth/mature coniferous forest 4 Lack of prescribed fire and fire-control activities

leave the limited amount of old-growth communities at moderately high risk Due to past

fire-suppression activities, fuel loads are

unnaturally high and may lead to high and

devastating fire intensities

2 Young coniferous forest 1 Not limiting

3 Clearcut/seedhng/shrub coniferous forest 1 Not limiting

4 Mountain shrub/prairie brushfield 1 Control of livestock grazing to provide for

ecosystem function and control of exotics

provide for healthy communities of mountain

shrub/prairie brushfields

5 Grasslands 4 Rare habitat with patchy distribution within the

assessment area Threat of invasion of exotics

through lack of any management control leave

these communities at moderately high risk

6 Shrub-steppe 5 Widespread habitat otherwise similar to habitat

5 Threats to unsuppressed fire increase the

threats of introduction or invasion of exotics

7 Juniper woodlands 5 Same as habitat type 6

8 Alpine 1 Most of this habitat is protected in highelevation areas with little threat to resource

extraction

9 Freshwater marshes, ponds lakes 2 Moderately low risk because of development

proposals, eutrophication, channelization, and

invasion of nonnative vertebrate and plant

species

10 Riparian 1 Lack of grazing, logging, and road building

leave riparian areas at low risk although

recreation would continue

11 Wet, dry, hay meadows 2 Uncontrolled spread of exotics leave these

communities at moderately low risk

12 Oak woodlands 4 Lack of fire-suppression activities, and the

potential for invasion of exotics as well as the

risk to development proposals leave these

communities at a moderately high risk

13 Aspen 1 Aspen communities are at a low risk because

of lack of logging and lack of grazing

14 Cliffs, rocks, talus 1 This community is secure

15 Urban 0 Not limiting

16 Agriculture/pastureland 0 Not limiting

44
Appendix 5

Assumptions of interior basin management themes considered for the

NTMB analysis

Theme: Consumptive demands

Theme: Consumptive-use of resources to meet social demands

Assumptions:

1. New roads

Road construction is allowed in areas where commodity production occurs.

2. Existing roads

Roads are maintained where cost-effective.

3. Timber harvest and silvicultural treatments.

Timber harvesting, including salvage harvesting, and other silvicultural

treatments emphasize maximizing the sustained yield of timber products.

4. Livestock grazing and forage management

Livestock grazing maximizes red meat production with sustained yield of forage.

5. Noxious weeds management

Efforts are taken to control exotic (noxious and nonnoxious) species where they detract from

resource values. This includes replacement with more desirable forage or timber species, that

is, through seeding, to reclaim infested sites.

6. Fire fighting— emphasis on prevention and suppression

Fire-fighting resources are used to protect standing crop resource values, private

property, existing structures, and public safety.

7. Prescriptive fire

Fire management will be used to maximize commodity production.

8. Special forest products

Collection of special forest products is permitted.

9. Mineral development

Exploration for and development of mineral resources are encouraged.

10. Wilderness allocations

Wilderness is managed according to the Wilderness Act but with minimum cost

to the government.

Theme: Passive management of ecological processes

Theme: Public lands are managed for nonconsumptive uses

Assumptions:

1. New roads

None.

2. Existing roads

Local and temporary roads will be closed. Permanent, hard-surfaced roads would

remain open.

3. Timber harvest and silvicultural treatments

No timber harvesting, including salvage harvesting. No silvicultural treatments.

4. Livestock grazing and forage management

No livestock grazing.

5. Noxious weeds management

No efforts are taken to control exotic (noxious and nonnoxious) species.

45
6. Fire fighting— emphasis on prevention and suppression

Fire-fighting resources are used only to protect existing publicly owned structures

or public safety.

7. Prescriptive fire

None.

8. Special forest products

No collection of special forest products.

9. Mineral development

No mining.

10. Wilderness allocations

Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service Wilderness areas are managed similar to the

rest of the land except that motorized vehicles are not allowed.

Theme: Actively manage for healthy ecosystems

Theme: Maintain and restore ecosystem functions and processes

Assumptions:

1. New roads

Construction of new roads is minimized and done in a manner that reduces

effects on watersheds and terrestrial species. Management emphasizes shortterm entries and temporary road systems.

2. Existing roads

Roads are restored where negative effects occur. Management emphasizes shortterm entries and temporary road systems.

3. Timber harvest and silvicultural treatments

Timber harvesting, salvage, and silvicultural treatments are primarily focussed on

achieving forest structure and composition to provide for ecosystem functions.

4. Livestock grazing and forage management

Livestock are grazed in conjunction with other wild herbivores to provide for

ecosystem function and process.

5. Noxious weeds management

Efforts are taken to control exotic (noxious and nonnoxious) species where they

are a threat to ecosystem function and process.

6. Fire fighting

Fire-fighting resources are used primarily to protect soil, air, and water quality;

ecosystem functions; private property; existing structures; and public safety.

7. Prescriptive fire

Fire management in conjunction with other vegetation management will provide

for ecosystem functions.

8. Special forest products

Collection is allowed where it does not interfere with ecosystem function and

process.

9. Mineral development

Mineral exploration and production is allowed if and where healthy ecosystems

can be permanently reestablished.

10. Wilderness allocations

Wildfires, prescribed fires, and other disturbances are actively managed to

provide for ecosystem functions.

46
Appendix 6

The following is a list of Neotropical migratory land birds in

the Columbia River basin with stable population trends from

1968 to 1994, based on the Breeding Bird Survey.

Turkey vulture

Northern harrier

Swainson's hawk

Ferruginous hawk

Prairie falcon

Kestrel

Short-eared owl

Burrowing owl

Belted kingfisher

Williamson's sapsucker

Lewis' woodpecker

Northern flicker

Common nighthawk

Vaux's swift

Rufous hummingbird

Eastern kingbird

Western kingbird

Western wood-pewee

Cordilleran flycatcher

Hammond's flycather

Dusky flycatcher

Bobolink

Brown-headed cowbird

Yellow-headed blackbird

Bullock's oriole

Purple finch

Cassin's finch

Red crossbill

Vesper sparrow

Grasshopper sparrow

White-crowned sparrow

Dark-eyed junco

Sage sparrow

Lincoln's sparrow

Fox sparrow

Green-tailed towhee

Lazuli bunting

Western tanager

Barn swallow

Tree swallow

Violet-green swallow

Bank swallow

Northern rough-winged swallow

Cedar waxwing

Red-eyed vireo

Solitary vireo

Nashville warbler

Yellow-rumped warbler

MacGillivray's warbler

Yellow-breasted chat

Wilson's warbler

American redstart

Sage thrasher

Rock wren

Brown creeper

Golden-crowned kinglet

Ruby-crowned kinglet

Townsend's solitaire

Veery

Swainson's thrush

Hermit thrush

Western bluebird

47
 Appendix 7

Data used to derive management concern indices by interior basin management the

Species

Turkey vulture

Osprey (supp )

Northern

harrier

Sharp-shinned

hawk

Cooper s hawk

Northern

goshawk

Swainson's

hawk

Red-tailed

hawk

Ferruginous

hawk

Golden eagle

American

kestrel

Merlin

Peregrine

falcon

Prairie falcon

Killdeer

Bd4

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

3

2

1

2

3

3

1

Pt26'

3

2

2

3

3

3

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

4

4

Ptu26'

3

3

3

4

4

5

3

2

3

3

3

4

5

3

2

PtlO'

2

1

2

3

3

3

2

2

2

1

3

2

3

2

5

Pmi(y

3

2

3

4

4

5

3

2

3

2

3

3

5

3

2

Habitats'

2,3 4 5,6 7

12 13 14,16

2,9, 10

5,6,9 11, 16

1,2, 10, 12 13

1,2, 10, 12, 13, 15

1,2, 10, 13

5,6,7, 10, 11, 13,

16

1,2,3, 4,5,6,7,9,

10 11, 12, 13, 14, 16

5,6,7, 13, 14

1,3 5,6,7,8, 10,

11, 13, 14, 16

1,2,3,4,5,6,7, 10,

11, 12 13, 14, 15, 16

2,6,7 10

5,6,9, 14, 15

5,6 7 11, 14, 16

5,9, 10, 11,15,16

Habitat threats*

NA'

27

3 00

32

38

317

3 50

3 43

3 07

3 40

291

2 86

3 50

2 80

2 83

2 67

CD/

32

3 67

4

42

3 50

4 00

4 29

371

4 20

3 64

3 36

4 00

3 20

3 50

3 33

AM/

1 9

2 33

22

22

183

2 00

2 43

2 14

2 60

2 09

1 93

3 00

2 00

2 33

183

PM/

23

1 33

26

22

1 83

1 75

2 57

2 29

3 20

2 27

2 14

3 00

2 40

2 83

1 50

Habitat specialization*

NA

03

1 00

06

08

0 53

0 88

0 49

0 22

0 68

0 26

0 20

0 88

0 56

0 47

0 44

CD

03

1 22

08

08

0 58

100

061

0 27

0 84

0 33

0 24

100

0 64

0 58

0 56

AM

02

0 78

04

04

031

0 50

0 35

0 15

0 52

0 19

0 14

0 75

0 40

0 39

031

PM

0 23

0 44

0 52

0 44

031

0 44

0 37

0 16

0 64

021

015

0 75

048

0 47

025

ED"

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

5

M

N

4 

5 

5 

6 

5 

7 

6 

4 

8 

5 

5 

7 

7 

73

9 

48
Appendix 7

Data used to derive management concern indices by interior basin management the

Species

Upland

sandpiper

Long-billed

curlew

Mourning dove

Black billed

cuckoo

Yellow-billed

cuckoo

Flammulated

owl

Burrowing owl

Long-eared owl

Short-eared owl

Common

nighthawk

Common

poorwill

Black swift

Vaux's swift

White-throated

swift

Black-chinned

hummingbird

Bd

b

3

4

1

3

2

3

3

1

1

1

3

5

5

3

3

Pt26

c

3

1

4

3

3

3

2

3

2

2

3

3

3

3

3

Ptu26

d

5

2

2

5

5

5

3

5

3

3

4

4

3

4

4

Ptl0

'

3

2

3

3

3

3

2

3

2

2

3

3

4

3

3

Pcul0

/

5

3

3

5

5

5

3

5

3

3

4

5

3

4

4

Habitats*

5 11

5,6,9, 11

1 2,3,4,5,6,7,

10, 12, 13, 15, 16

10

10

1, 13

5,6,7, 11, 16

1,2,7, 10, 11, 13

5,6,9, 11, 16

1,2,3, 5,6,7, 10,

11, 12, 13

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,

11, 13

9, 10, 14

1, 10, 15, 16

5,6,7, 10, 14

3,4,6, 10, 15

Habitat threats*

NA

4 00

4

3 00

5 00

5 00

4 00

3 20

3 33

3 20

3 60

3 22

3 00

2 50

3 80

2 80

CD

/

5 00

5

3 42

5 00

5 00

5 00

4 00

4 33

4 00

4 20

4 00

3 67

2 50

4 20

3 00

AM

/

2 50

2 8

2 00

3 00

3 00

2 00

2 60

2 50

2 20

2 50

2 22

2 33

150

3 00

160

PM'

3 00

33

2 25

1 00

1 00

2 50

3 20

2 33

2 60

2 80

2 67

1 33

1 25

3 20

1 60

Habitat specializationTM

NA

2 00

1

0 2 5

5 00

5 00

2 00

0 64

0 56

0 64

0 36

0 36

100

0 63

0 76

0 56

CD

2 50

1 3

0 28

5 00

5 00

2 50

0 80

0 72

0 80

0 42

0 44

1 22

0 63

0 84

0 60

AM

125

0 7

0 17

3 00

3 00

1 00

0 52

0 42

0 44

0 25

0 25

0 78

0 38

0 60

0 32

PM

1 50

0 8 1

0 19

1 00

1 00

1 25

0 64

0 39

0 52

0 28

0 30

0 44

0 3 1

0 64

0 32

ED"

1

0

5

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1
 Appendix 7

Data used to derive management concern indices by interior basin management th

Species

Calliope

hummingbird

Broad-tailed

hummingbird

Rufous

hummingbird

Belted

kingfisher

Lewis'

woodpecker

Red-naped

sapsucker

Red-breasted

sapsucker

Williamson s

sapsucker

Northern

flicker

Olive-sided

flycatcher

Western woodpewee

Willow

flycatcher

Least flycatcher

Hammond's

flycatcher

Bdb

4

3

4

1

4

4

4

4

1

3

2

3

2

4

Pt26c

4

3

4

4

4

1

3

4

3

4

3

4

3

2

Ptu26d'

3

4

3

3

3

2

4

3

3

2

3

2

4

3

Ptl0/

5

3

4

3

3

2

3

4

3

4

2

4

3

2

Ptul0/

2

4

3

3

4

3

4

3

3

2

3

2

4

3

Habitatsb

1,2,3,4 8, 10, 11,

13

1,2,3 7, 10, 11, 13

2,4,8, 10, 11 12,

13,15, 16

9, 10

1, 10, 12

1,2, 10, 13

1,2, 10, 13, 16

1, 10, 13

1,2,3,7,8,10, 12,

13,15

1,2,3,8

1,2, 10, 12 13, 15,

16

10

10

1,2, 10, 13

Habitat threats*

NA'

2 75

3 00

2 33

4 00

5 00

3 50

2 80

4 33

2 67

2 00

2 71

5 00

5 00

3 50

CO

3 63

3 86

3 11

5 00

5 00

4 00

3 20

5 00

3 33

2 50

3 00

5 00

5 00

4 00

AMb

1 63

2 29

1 33

3 00

3 00

2 00

1 60

2 33

2 00

1 50

1 57

3 00

3 00

2 00

PM/

1 50

2 14

1 22

1 50

3 00

175

140

2 00

2 00

175

1 57

100

100

175

Habitat specializationa

NA

0 34

0 43

0 26

2 00

167

0 88

06

144

0 30

0 50

0 39

5 00

5 00

0 88

CD

045

055

0 35

2 50

167

100

06

167

0 37

0 63

0 43

5 00

5 00

100

AM

0 20

0 33

0 15

1 50

1 00

0 50

03

0 78

0 22

0 38

0 22

3 00

3 00

0 50

PM

0 19

031

0 14

0 75

1 00

0 44

0 28

0 67

0 22

0 44

0 22

100

1 00

0 44

ED"

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

5

1

5

1

1

50
Species

Dusky

flycatcher

Gray flycatcher

Cordilleran

flycatcher

Say's phoebe

Ash-throated

flycatcher

Western

kingbird

Eastern

kingbird

Horned lark

Purple martin

Tree swallow

Violet-green

swallow

Northern

rough-winged

swallow

Bank swallow

Cliff swallow

Barn swallow

Brown creeper

Bdb

4

4

4

2

3

3

2

1

2

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

Pt26f

2

2

2

1

3

3

3

4

3

3

2

2

3

2

3

4

Ptu26d

3

3

3

2

4

3

3

2

5

3

3

3

3

2

3

3

Pcl0'

2

1

2

3

3

2

3

3

3

3

2

3

2

3

4

4

Ptu10/

3

2

3

3

4

3

3

3

5

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

Habitatsb

1 2, 3 4 10 13

3,6,7

1,2, 13

5, 6, 7, 16

6,7, 10, 12

5,6 10, 12, 16

9, 10,11,16

5,6, 11, 16

9, 10, 15,16

9, 10, 11 13 15, 16

1,2, 9, 10, 13, 14

15, 16

6, 9, 10

9, 10

5,6,9, 10, 11, 14,

15, 16

9 10, 15 16

1 2

Habitat threatsh

NA'

3 00

3 00

3 00

325

4 50

4 00

2 75

3 25

2 00

2 33

2 25

4 33

4 00

2 75

2 00

3 00

CD'

3 50

3 67

3 67

3 75

5 00

4 00

3 75

3 75

2 50

3 33

2 75

5 00

5 00

3 25

2 50

3 00

AMb

1 67

3 00

1 67

2 75

3 50

2 40

2 00

2 00

1 50

1 50

1 50

3 00

3 00

1 88

1 50

2 00

PM/

1 50

3 67

2 00

3 50

3 75

2 80

125

2 75

0 75

1 00

125

2 67

1 50

188

0 75

2 50

Habitat specializationm

NA

0 50

1 00

1 00

0 8 1

1 13

0 80

0 69

0 8 1

0 50

0 39

0 28

1 44

2 00

0 34

0 50

1 50

CD

0 58

122

1 22

0 94

125

0 80

0 94

0 94

0 63

0 56

0 34

167

2 50

041

0 63

150

AM

0 28

1 00

0 56

0 69

0 88

0 48

0 50

0 50

0 38

0 25

0 19

1 00

1 50

0 23

0 38

1 00

PM

0 25

1 22

0 67

0 88

0 94

0 56

0 3 1

0 69

0 19

0 17

0 16

0 89

0 75

0 23

0 19

125

ED"

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

5

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

M

N

8 

8 

9 

6 

9 

8 

6 

1

5 

4 

6 

7 

8 

5 

4 

6 

Appendix 7

Data used to derive management concern indices by interior basin management the

51
Appendix 7

Data used to derive management concern indices by interior basin management the

Species

Rock wren

House wren

Marsh wren

Goldencrowned kinglet

(supp )

Ruby-crowned

kinglet

Blue-gray

gnatcatcher

Western

bluebird

Mountain

bluebird

Townsend s

solitaire

Veery

Swainson's

thrush

Hermit thrush

American robin

Gray catbird

Northern

mockingbird

Bdb

3

1

3

3

2

2

3

3

3

3

2

2

1

2

2

Pt26r

2

2

2

3

2

3

4

2

4

4

3

2

3

2

3

Ptu26d

3

2

3

3

3

4

3

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

5

Ptl0/

2

1

1

4

3

3

2

1

4

4

4

2

4

1

3

Ptul0/

3

2

2

3

3

4

3

2

3

3

3

3

2

2

5

Habitatsb

5,6,7, 14

1,2,3, 10 12, 13,

15, 16

9

1,2

1,2,7

4,5,7, 10

1,2,3,4,7, 10, 12

13, 16

1,2,3,5,6,7,8, 13

1,2,3,7

10

1,2, 10, 13

1,2,3,8

1,2,3,4,7, 10, 11,

13, 14, 15, 16

10

6 10

Habitat threats*

NA

3 50

2 50

3 00

3 00

3 00

4 00

2 89

3 00

2 50

5 00

3 50

2 00

2 27

5 00

5 00

CD/

4 00

2 75

5 00

3 00

3 67

4 75

3 44

3 75

3 00

5 00

4 00

2 50

2 91

5 00

5 00

AMb

3 00

1 50

3 00

2 00

3 00

3 00

2 00

2 25

2 50

3 00

2 00

1 50

164

3 00

3 00

PM/

3 75

1 50

2 00

2 50

3 33

2 75

2 00

2 75

2 75

1 00

1 75

1 75

1 55

1 00

3 00

Habitat specialization"1

NA

0 88

031

3 00

1 50

1 00

1 00

0 32

0 38

0 63

5 00

0 88

0 50

021

5 00

2 50

CD

1 00

0 34

5 00

1 50

1 22

1 19

0 38

0 47

0 75

5 00

1 00

0 63

0 26

5 00

2 50

AM

0 75

0 19

3 00

1 00

1 00

0 75

0 22

0 28

0 63

3 00

0 50

0 38

0 15

3 00

1 50

PM

0 94

0 19

2 00

1 25

1 11

0 69

0 22

0 34

0 69

1 00

0 44

0 44

0 14

1 00

1 50

ED"

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

5

0

1

M

N

8 

3

9 

8 

7 

8 

7

6 

7 

14 

7 

5 

8 

12 

10 

52
Appendix 7

Data used to derive management concern indices by interior basin management the

Species

Sage thrasher

American pipit

Cedar waxwing

Loggerhead

shrike

Solitary vireo

Warbling vireo

Red eyed vireo

Tennessee

warbler

Orange

crowned

warbler

Nashville

warbler

Virginia s

warbler

Yellow warbler

Yellow rumped

warbler

Black throated

gray warbler

Townsend s

warbler

Hermit warbler

Bd

b

4

3

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

5

1

1

3

4

5

Pt26

2

3

3

4

3

2

4

3

2

3

3

4

3

3

1

3

Pt26

d

3

5

3

2

3

2

3

5

2

3

5

3

3

4

2

4

Pct10

3

3

4

2

2

2

2

3

1

2

3

4

3

3

2

3

Ptu10

/

3

5

3

3

3

3

3

5

2

3

5

2

3

4

3

4

Habitats

b

6 7

8 11

7 10 15 16

5 6 7

1 2 10

2 10 12 13

10 13

1 2

4 10 12 13

2 3 4 10 12

4 7 10

10

1 2 10 12 13

7 10 12

1 2

1 2

Habitat threats

b

NA

4 00

2 00

2 00

4 33

3 67

3 50

5 00

3

4 00

3 00

3 67

5 00

3 80

4 33

3 00

3 00

CO

5 00

4 00

2 50

5 00

3 67

4 00

5 00

3

4 75

3 20

4 67

5 00

4 20

5 00

3 00

3 00

AM

k

4 00

1 50

2 00

3 67

2 33

2 00

3 00

2

2 00

1 80

3 00

3 00

2 20

3 67

2 00

2 00

PM

5 00

1 50

1 50

4 67

2 00

175

1 00

2 5

1 75

1 60

2 33

1 00

2 20

3 33

2 50

2 50

Habitat specialization

m

NA

2 00

1 00

0 50

1 44

1 22

0 88

5 00

1 5

1 00

0 60

1 22

5 00

0 76

1 44

1 50

1 50

CD

2 50

2 00

0 63

167

1 22

1 00

5 00

1 5

1 19

0 64

1 56

5 00

0 84

167

1 50

1 50

AM

2 00

0 75

0 50

1 22

0 78

0 50

3 00

1

0 50

0 36

1 00

3 00

0 44

1 22

1 00

1 00

PM

2 50

0 75

0 38

1 56

0 67

0 44

1 00

1 3

0 44

0 32

0 78

1 00

0 44

1 11

1 25

1 25

ED

n

1

1

1

5

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

5

1

1

0

1

7 

5 

7 

6 

8

8 

7 

6 

9 

8 

1
Appendix 7

Data used to derive management concern indices by interior basin management the

Species

American

redstart

Northern

waterthrush

MacGillivray s

warbler

Common

yellowthroat

Wilson's

warbler

Yellowbreasted chat

Western

tanager

Black-headed

grosbeak

Blue grosbeak

Lazuli bunting

Green-tailed

towhee

Spotted

towhee

Chipping

sparrow

Clay-colored

sparrow

Bdb

2

2

4

1

3

2

3

3

2

3

4

2

1

4

Pt26

3

3

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

2

2

2

4

3

Ptu26d'

3

4

3

3

3

3

3

2

5

3

3

2

2

4

Ptl0'

3

3

2

2

2

2

2

1

3

2

2

1

3

3

Ptu10/

3

4

3

2

3

3

3

2

5

3

3

2

3

4

Habitatsb

2, 10

9, 10 13

2 3,4, 10

9, 10 11

8, 10

9, 10

1,2,7,10, 12, 13,

15

2,4, 10, 12, 15, 16

4, 10

4,7,8, 10, 13

3,4,6,7

4, 10, 12, 15, 16

1,2,3,7,8, 12,15,

16

4,5

Habitat threats*

NA

3 00

3 67

2 50

3 67

3 00

4 00

3 14

2 33

4 00

3 00

3 00

2 60

2 00

4 00

CD/

3 00

5 00

2 75

5 00

4 00

5 00

3 71

2 50

4 50

4 40

3 75

2 80

2 50

4 50

AMk

2 00

2 33

1 50

2 67

2 00

3 00

2 29

1 33

2 00

2 20

2 50

1 40

175

2 00

PMl

1 00

1 33

1 00

1 67

1 00

1 50

2 29

1 17

1 00

1 80

3 00

1 20

2 00

2 50

Habita

NA

1 50

1 22

0 63

1 22

1 50

2 00

0 45

0 39

2 00

0 60

0 75

0 52

0 25

2 00

t specializationm

CD

1 50

1 67

0 69

1 67

2 00

2 50

0 53

0 42

2 25

0 88

0 94

0 56

0 3 1

2 25

AM

1 00

0 78

0 38

0 89

1 00

1 50

0 33

0 22

1 00

0 44

0 63

0 28

0 22

1 00

PM

0 50

0 44

0 25

0 56

0 50

0 75

0 33

0 19

0 50

0 36

0 75

0 24

0 25

125

ED"

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

5

1

M

N

7 

7 

8 

5 

8 

9 

7 

5 

9 

7 

8 

5 

8 

1

54
Species

Brewer's

sparrow

Vesper sparrow

Lark sparrow

Black-throated

sparrow

Sage sparrow

Lark bunting

Savannah

sparrow

Grasshopper

sparrow

Fox sparrow

Song sparrow

Lincoln's

sparrow

White-crowned

sparrow

Dark-eyed

junco

Bobolink

Red-winged

blackbird

Western

meadowlark

Bd

b

3

2

2

3

4

4

1

2

2

1

3

2

1

3

1

2

Pt26

c

4

3

4

3

4

3

3

3

4

4

2

3

3

2

4

3

Pt26

d

2

3

2

4

3

5

3

3

3

2

3

3

3

3

2

2

Pt10

e

4

3

4

3

2

3

4

3

4

4

2

2

3

2

4

4

Ptul0

f

2

3

3

4

3

5

2

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

2

2

Habitats

l

6

5 6,7, 11, 16

5 6, 7 12, 16

6

5,6,7

5,6

5,9, 11, 16

5,6, 16

3,4,8, 10

9, 10, 15

8, 10, 11

10, 11, 13

1,2,3,7,8, 10, 12,

13

5, 11

9 10, 15, 16

5,6,7, 11, 16

Habitat threats

b

NA

5 00

3 20

3 60

5 00

4 33

5 00

2 75

3 33

2 50

2 67

3 00

3 67

3 00

4 00

2 00

3 20

CD

/

5 00

4 00

4 00

5 00

5 00

5 00

3 75

3 33

3 25

3 33

4 33

5 00

3 75

5 00

2 50

4 00

AM

k

3 00

2 60

2 80

3 00

3 67

3 00

2 00

2 00

1 50

2 00

2 00

2 00

2 25

2 50

1 50

2 60

PM

/

5 00

3 20

3 60

5 00

4 67

4 50

2 00

3 00

100

1 00

133

133

2 25

3 00

0 75

3 20

Habitat specialization

n

NA

5 00

0 64

0 72

5 00

1 44

2 50

0 69

1 11

0 63

0 89

1 00

1 22

0 38

2 00

0 50

0 64

CD

5 00

0 80

0 80

5 00

1 67

2 50

0 94

1 11

081

1 11

1 44

1 67

0 47

2 50

0 63

0 80

AM

3 00

0 52

0 56

3 00

1 22

1 50

0 50

0 67

0 38

0 67

0 67

0 67

0 28

125

0 38

0 52

PM

5 00

0 64

0 72

5 00

1 56

2 25

0 50

1 00

0 25

0 33

0 44

0 44

0 28

1 50

0 19

0 64

ED

n

5

1

5

1

1

1

5

1

1

5

1

1

1

1

5

5

M

NA

18 

6 8

11

14 

10 

12 

9 4

7 4

6 1

9 5

8 0

7 8

5 3

10 

8 5

10 

Appendix 7

Data used to derive management concern indices by interior basin management them
Appendix 7

Data used to derive management concern indices by interior basin management them

Species

Yellow-headed

blackbird

Brewer s

blackbird

Brown-headed

cowbird

Bullock's oriole

Purple finch

Cassin's finch

Pine siskin

Lesser

goldfinch

American

goldfinch

Tn-colored

blackbird

Red crossbill

Bd

b

3

3

1

3

3

3

2

3

1

5

2

Pt26

c

'

3

4

2

3

3

2

4

3

4

3

2

Ptu26

d

3

2

3

3

4

3

3

5

2

4

3

Ptl0'

4

4

3

4

3

3

4

3

2

3

1

Ptu10

/

3

2

3

3

4

3

2

5

3

4

2

Habitats

b

9, 11, 16

5 6, 10, 11, 15 16

3, 5,6 9, 10, 12,

15, 16

6, 10, 12, 15, 16

15, 16

1,2,7, 10, 13

1,2,3,7

6,7, 16

10, 12, 15, 16

9, 16

1,2, 10

Habita

NA'

2 00

3 00

3 00

3 00

0 00

3 40

2 50

2 67

2 50

1 50

3 67

t threats

b

CD

/

3 33

3 33

3 25

3 00

0 00

4 20

3 00

3 33

2 50

2 50

3 67

AM

k

1 67

1 83

2 00

1 80

0 00

2 60

2 50

2 67

1 50

1 50

2 33

PM

/

1 33

2 00

2 13

2 00

0 00

2 40

2 75

3 33

1 25

1 00

2 00

Habitat specialization

m

NA

0 67

0 50

0 38

0 60

0 00

0 68

0 63

0 89

0 63

0 75

1 22

CD

1 11

0 56

041

0 60

0 00

0 84

0 75

1 11

0 63

125

1 22

AM

0 56

031

0 25

0 36

0 00

0 52

0 63

0 89

0 38

0 75

0 78

PM

0 44

0 33

0 27

0 40

0 00

0 48

0 69

1 11

031

0 50

0 67

ED

n

1

5

1

1

1

1

5

1

5

1

0

Ma

NA

6 6

11 

5 3

7 6

4 0

8 0

10 

7 5

9 1

8 2

6 8

a See appendix 2 for derailed field definitions and explanations of calculations 14=Cliffs and talus, 15=Urban, 16=Agriculture/pastureland

b BD Breeding distribution (Carter and Barker 1993) h Habitat threats (TH) overall threats to species' habitats (see appendix 2)

c PT26 26-year population trend based on BBS (Carter and Barker 1993) i NA No action

d PTU26 26-year population trend uncertainty (Carter and Barker 1993) j CD Consumption demand

e PT10 10-year population trend based on BBS (Carter and Barker 1993) k AM Active management

f PTU10 10-year population trend uncertainty (Carter and Baker 1993) l PM Passive management

g Habitats Nesting and foraging habitats used during the breeding season m Habitat specialization (HS) overall habitat specialization of the species (see a

Number codes for habitats 1 =Old-growth conifer, 2=Young conifer, 3=Seedhng conifer, n ED Evidence of decline (see appendix 2)

4=Mountain shrub, 5=Grasslands, 6=Shrub-steppe, 7=Juniper woodlands, 8=Alpine, o Management index BD + ED + TH + HS

9=Marshes and ponds, 10=Ripanan, ll=Meadows, 12=Oak woodlands, 13=Aspen,
Saab, Victoria A ; Rich, Terrell D 1997 Large-scale conservation assessment for Neotropical migratory land birds in the interior Columbia River basin Gen Tech Rep. PNWGTR-399 Portland, OR U S Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station 56 p (Quigley, Thomas M , ed Interior Columbia Basin

Ecosystem Management Project scientific assessment)

The status and habitats of 132 species of neotropical migratory landbirds (NTMB) are

evaluated within the Interior Columbia River Basin (CRB) Objectives are to examine

population trends, estimate NTMB responses to alternative management activities and

provide recommendations by habitat and species that will lead to long-term persistence of

NTMB populations Five habitats (riparian, old growth forests, shrubsteppe, grasslands,

and juniper) are identified for management priorities based on species declines, vulnerability to human activities and habitat loss Among the four management themes considered,

more species (63) were of high management concern under Consumptive Management

than any other theme Active and Passive Management themes are predicted to have

negative effects on the fewest species, 23 and 16, respectively

Keywords Neotropical migrants, migratory birds, Interior Columbia Basin, population

trends, conservation assessment, land-use planning, management themes, bird/habitat

associations

The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of multiple use

management of the Nation's forest resources for

sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and

recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation

with the States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests and National Grasslands,

it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a growing Nation.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

prohibits discrimination in its programs on the basis of

race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability,

political beliefs, and marital or familial status. (Not all

prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with

disabilities who require alternative means of communication of program information (Braille, large print,

audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA's TARGET

Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC

20250, or call (800) 245-6340 (voice), or (202)

720-1127 (TDD). USDA is an equal employment

opportunity employer.

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 S.W. First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, Oregon 97208-3890